Composers and artists themselves destroy the business.

Home Forums Commentary Composers and artists themselves destroy the business.

Viewing 10 posts - 31 through 40 (of 53 total)
  • Author
  • #29861 Reply
    Art Munson

    Art – perhaps a sticky or sub forum or some place where people can go find libraries doing this and report libraries doing this?

    Not a bad idea but need to think about it as all subscription sites are not the same. Some allow wholesale downloading while others are more restrictive. How to delineate in the listing between the various types?

    See what I did here –

    #29862 Reply

    I would say maybe create an easy to find, attention getting list near the ratings button below. Or even just e-mail blast your entire list of folks here? The more “informational” (negative/ warning) press about these models the better I’d think.

    Be warned all writers: any of you who take an “Ah I don’t care what these folks do” attitude, you are 100% complicit in allowing it and inching closer to the nail in the coffin on your ability to earn from production music.

    I really wonder how all those folks who sold out to Epidemic feel. They really are clueless as to what they signed away. ignorance is the problem folks. Ignorance needs to be prevented.
    Education and guidance is what is needed.

    To all young writers please know that tracks can very easily go on and earn Tens of thousands of dollars even over $100,000 if you can wait things out a few years. This does not happen in buy out opportunities nor within subscription models. You have to hang onto your ownership of the asset to give yourself a shot at the surprise big pay day. You really never know when it can hit. If you put out good quality you better keep those assets attached to your hip. Even if you make looped beats OWN THEM! You never know man, really. I have seen more bizarre things on my statements to justify what i am saying.

    When you give your music to a company that does not pay you money (royalties, sync fees, whatever) after a certain time frame, it’s probably a good idea to write to them and remove your music. Don’t be lazy and nice!

    #29863 Reply

    Yes. Young guys should know that IT IS STILL POSSIBLE to make $100k + writing for library music after a few years. BUT, you have to work hard and make wise decisions. (I’m sorry to say that most young guys I meet are not willing or capable of doing either.) We have the control, and I have not seen a subscription model that I would call a “wise decision”. Well, maybe wise for the library owners, but not from a composers perspective.

    If these subscription models are allowed to flourish, the only winners are the end users and the libraries. The thought of a lucrative career, or really ANY career in writing production music is gone. Out the window.

    Hey, with thousands of placements – many of which are running in syndication – I’ve got enough momentum to carry me through well into retirement, but young guys should not be so chill about where they put their music.

    We are the ones who enable these types of opportunistic models to work.

    Just say no.

    #29864 Reply

    See what I did here –

    yup. I see what you did. IMO, semi-helpful, but I read right over it the first time. I actually had to be LOOKING for it. If it was in RED font, bolded and big maybe…. 🙂

    If it was my site, and it’s most DECIDEDLY not, I’d emblazon a massive scarlet letter style warning to any library approaching this style model. If proven successful for composers, I’d consider removing it, but leaving a less invasive warning such as the one you have done above….

    Then again, I’m probably not a level headed as you Art. Haha!

    #29865 Reply
    Art Munson

    If it was in RED font, bolded

    Red now. If they can’t see it now they aren’t paying attention!

    #29866 Reply


    #29867 Reply

    Art and all other experienced veterans, I would be willing to launch a “Basic Training” thread and write about the basics: for all to know:

    What is a publisher? What role do they play?
    What is a music copyright?
    What are PRO’s? What do they do for writers and publishers?
    What are stock music licensing sites?
    What is the difference between a stock music licensing site and a music publisher?
    What are the various business models to license music?
    Advantages and disadvantages of both?
    What are digital service providers as it relates to streaming (spotify, apple music, I-tunes, youtube, deezer, tunecore, cd baby) etc? How can one make money on Streaming platforms?
    What is the Harry Fox agency and how does it or can it apply to you?
    What is Sound exchange and what does it do for songwriters, artists, composers, musicians?
    What are the SAG and AFM unions and how do they play into the business?

    and so on….

    Really, it’s ignorance that also helps destroy our business. It’s predatory business models and people that ruin the business. It’s hedge fund investors that find manipulative ways to exploit artists and ironically, they too know very little about the business but decide to “get in this space” just for fun.

    Word does travel fast in ether.

    I do believe we can make a difference and I will gladly write a few thoughts each day about our business of music licensing and production music.

    Ignorance needs to be resolved.

    #29868 Reply

    Hi guys,

    I think adding a field for subscription models in the library database is great and an important info to have! And it’s also important to highlight this info – the red, bold warning should get everyone’s attention.

    Yet the implementation is a bit confusing right now: The warning message now appears on EVERY library page, regardless of them using a subscription model or not.

    @Art: Is there some way to only show this message if the status for the field is actually ‘YES’? Or maybe change the wording a bit?

    Anyway, here’s another NE-library with a dirt cheap subscription plan that had approached me when they started last year. I declined the offer…

    And here’s a quote from their email, ‘describing’ their subscription model:

    [The subscription service…] is designed to provide all of our artists with some regular monetary compensation, regardless of whether or not your tracks are chosen for license. In short, a percentage of each subscription will be held over and divided among ALL artists to ensure that everyone is compensated at some level for their work. Additionally, when your music is chosen to be downloaded and licensed from the subscription pool, you will receive a fee per ‘downloaded track’ (single-use, single project). Calculations are based on how many users we have, and how many tracks they download, each month. The more your tracks are downloaded, the more you get paid. Needless to say, the more subscribers we have the better it will be for all artists.

    : Thanks for bringing up this important topic!

    #29869 Reply
    Art Munson

    The warning message now appears on EVERY library page,

    Duh, you are right. I didn’t think that through. Plan B, will put in notes section. Thanks for letting me know!

    #29872 Reply
    Art Munson

    Art – perhaps a sticky or sub forum or some place where people can go find libraries doing this and report libraries doing this?

    See upper right, of any page, under Access Music Libraries.

Viewing 10 posts - 31 through 40 (of 53 total)
Reply To: Composers and artists themselves destroy the business.
Your information: