Composers and artists themselves destroy the business.

Home Forums Commentary Composers and artists themselves destroy the business.

Viewing 10 posts - 11 through 20 (of 53 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #29835 Reply
    LAwriter
    Participant

    A person who flips houses, or who speculates on custom homes puts a lot of time, energy and money upfront – and then eventually reaps the profits at a later time. No one calls their profits “passive earnings”. There’s nothing “passive” about it.

    I don’t see that as any different than what we do. If I put 6 months of my life and large outlay of cash into a project that takes 20 years to fully pay off, I don’t consider that “passive” income. I consider it delayed earnings and a poor business model. LOL

    #29836 Reply
    Music1234
    Participant

    LOL! Let’s not forget about passive losses. You write a few tracks and they never make a dime. LOL!

    #29837 Reply
    Art Munson
    Keymaster

    By the way, I personally know many musicians and singers getting sweet pensions from the AFM and SAG unions for work done in the 60s 70s 80s and 90s…Is that considered passive income too?

    So true. I still get checks from records I played on in the 60s and 70s. Sometimes quite decent. One record went into the film “Ghost” and my check was $1500. That was 25 years after the record date. I passively cashed the check. Ah, the good old days!

    #29838 Reply
    Composer Of Notes
    Participant

    There was a cat in town who would say that no one should ever do a gig for less than $100 and he would admonish those who did take those lower paying gigs.
    I’ll tell you the same thing I told him.
    Get me the gig that pays more and I’ll take it.

    #29839 Reply
    Music1234
    Participant

    I suppose there still is some positive news:

    https://www.ascap.com/newsletters/member-services/2018/04-19-financial?utm_source=ASCAP&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=member-services&utm_content=member-services

    If only writers would just stop giving away their music for nothing, and if only publishers would somehow stop thinking that the music they have is only for them to profit from. No one has ever answered the question as to how contributing writers get paid under a model that suddenly shifts to subscriptions. How do you manage the accounting? Any idea?

    When a publisher licenses a composition to a licensor it is clear as day who is getting paid: the composer will make money and the publisher who sold the license will make money.

    When a publisher sells an annual subscription fee for unlimited access to an entire catalog, it would seem to me that only 1 party will make all the revenue – the publisher. The problem is that these rights have not been granted to the publisher.

    It’s as if publishers are now saying “we own this content, and can do whatever we want with it.” They don’t own the music in most cases from my perspective.

    #29840 Reply
    Michael Nickolas
    Participant

    Get me the gig that pays more and I’ll take it.

    I think his point was that if everybody turned down the less than $100 gig offers, such offers would cease to exist.

    #29841 Reply
    Music1234
    Participant

    to Michael’s point, it does happen in the voice over business. It is very hard to find good talent willing to do the work for under $100 to $150 an hour. They can be found but the product will be inferior and the person doing the work will be bitter about it. There is over supply in that area of media production too, but those folks keep prices up. VO folks know how to value themselves better than musicians. Everyone reading this, start placing a value on yourself. It all starts there. Stock music licensing sites and Music Publishers do not value writers, they just use writers as a cheap commodity to exploit in high volume for big profits, but writers allow it to happen.

    #29842 Reply
    Tbone
    Participant

    As sad as it is, I agree with Music1234 that in general, stock music licensing sites do not value or care about writers (whatever they may claim to the contrary) and see them as a cheap commodity to be exploited.

    Sometimes there is a company which is an exception to this and they really do care, but what I’ve seen over the years is that they either end up selling to a bigger, impersonal corporation, or they don’t do well because sadly, to compete they have to be as ruthless as the others.

    Some of the things which have happened to me in the music library business have been, in my view, pretty deceitful and underhanded.

    Something like a music library composers’ union could help, but I don’t see how to set one up when there are so many writers who would take deals we wouldn’t. It’s a difficult situation but the only way I see us all getting somewhere, is joining together and presenting a united front to the libraries.

    #29845 Reply
    Music1234
    Participant

    A united front to yourself is a good start. Just merely saying – my music is always for sale, and never free, and never part of a scheme where accounting is impossible – is a good start.

    #29847 Reply
    boinkeee2000
    Participant

    I’ve combed through the database here and never have i seen a deal that bad ($135/yr-unlimited dwnlds)…worst i’ve seen is $89/mnth – 10 downloads max…and thats only for social media/youtube/personal use…..still not appealing, but the former is something i have not come across nor could it ever become the norm….

Viewing 10 posts - 11 through 20 (of 53 total)
Reply To: Composers and artists themselves destroy the business.
Your information: