- This topic has 32 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Perhaps it’s helpful to break down the PRODUCTION MUSIC category into:
– large ‘label’ owned companies. Sometimes a smaller library might not be owned but in partnership with a large label (APM does this a lot with smaller libraries). The deals are often buy-out / work-for-hire, where you will get writer’s share royalties but they own the music and keep all licensing (some different deals do occur though). The upfront fees are good, typically around $1000 a track. Expectations of musicality and production are very high.
The advantage is these companies are massive and have people on the ground in all major markets, maximizing your chances of making international royalties.– smaller companies, you could consider these ‘indies’.
They often specialize in one area, like reality TV, commercials, or trailers. Depending on the business they’re focused on, you might have the potential to make licensing, royalties or retail (iTunes) income.The deals are more varied, some still pay upfront for a buy-out of the licensing, but more often the deals are little to no money upfront for a split of the licensing (and you still of course get your writer’s share).
In this category you find some companies that re-title your tracks, so they’re ‘non-exclusive‘ in that you might be able to give the same tracks to another non-exclusive company and/or represent them yourself. Some companies were non-ex then moved to an exclusive business model more recently, as clients got wary of receiving multiple copies of the same music, with just different track names.I really don’t like the analogy of the stock market when it comes to music, but is similar in that many folks here diversify – even a lot of the folks who do well with tv and film placements still have quite a bit of music the royalty free, as well as non exclusive and exclusive libraries. NE has done the least well for me, but I haven’t been in the game that long – a few years really. One of the better performing libraries that used to be non exclusive is a favorite among many, but is exclusive now, a trend that many former NE followed.My opinion, and my opinion only, but if other folks want to chime in feel free, but with one exception I am wanting to focus more on exclusive and RF. Just cleaner that way. And write more to briefs or to specific needs for the exclusive ones.
I just want to add that some production music libraries (like us) do not accept submission from composers that are included in RF libraries. Or at least very rarely and only under a pseudonym.
I do understand why composers would want to be included in both but if you are a professional full time composer I think it’s a mistake to have some of your music included in RF libraries. You want to brand yourself as a cheap commodity or someone who as a good product to offer? You want your track to be purchased for $30 for all rights in perpetuity by a company and used 1000 times without getting paid or you want to get paid appropriately for each single use? The problem right now is that there are so many desperate composers that are so eager to make any income that they make desperate deals with RF companies. So Wall E, if you are serious about your career as a composer my suggestion is to submit your music to many production music libraries, create relationships with the ones that accept your music and work exclusively with them. You have more chance of being taking seriously as a composer that way and down the road it will pay off. Just my opinion:) Jean at Music For Productions Inc.See, Jean, that’s exactly what I wondered about, the perceived value of a composer’s music when they are included in RF libraries.
To each his own, I guess.
So Wall E, if you are serious about your career as a composer my suggestion is to submit your music to many production music libraries, create relationships with the ones that accept your music and work exclusively with them.
I think it really depends on each individual and their place in life. I have done it all ways. Exclusive, Non-Exclusive and RF. Non-Exclusive and RF generates the most income for me. A lot of those exclusives I’ve signed are just gathering dust. Of course I’m hoping at some point they will generate some decent, ongoing, income. At this point in my life NE and RF are the way to go. And yes I am serious about my career as a composer and have been for decades! 🙂
The problem right now is that there are so many desperate composers that are so eager to make any income that they make desperate deals with RF companies.
Not only desperate because wanting an income in reasonable time but also no many options at all if the decent exclusives do not listen to your music, ever.
The few exclusives I did (tried to) submit so far (admittedly quite high targets) didn’t listen to my music at all.
How I know? easy, the link I sent is private and has a play counter which has precisely 0 plays, so they hardly will ever known if my music is good enough for their library or not if submissions are systematically ignored.
On the other hand I have an album in a small exclusive and feels like I never will make any money with them, nor reputation.Even if gaining some reputation, reputation won’t pay the bills, that’s granted.
Look I know well what reputation is because I work (as CG artist) in one of the best VFX studios in Earth, Weta Digital, so yeah I did work on The Hobbit trilogy, Men of Steel, The Planet of the Apes, Prometeus, Iron Man III, etc.
Guess what? I did make more in the past when I had less reputation in small studios but within a Supervising position than in a top studios as simple senior artist.But within this business, in my short experience as composer, nowadays we are not talking about making more or making less, but about making something or making nothing at all, because with small exclusives most likely your tracks will be gathering dust and the big ones do not listen to submissions…
Indeed I think I go to choose the NE and RF path too as I’d like to make a living out of music some day and with these (unlike exclusive ones) at least you have a chance, with reduced income but at least a chance.Art, I think it’s also OK to work with non-exclusive or semi-exclusive production companies. My problem with working with RF libraries is that in my opinion the professional composer is undervaluing his own music. So what do you think the end-users will think of the composer’s music if it’s licensed through a RF company? He will think it’s cheap music. This could be a problem if he also want to include his music in a Production music library. For example I worked with an excellent composer and my clients were paying top dollars for his music until one of my client came back to me and said that he heard some of the same tracks he licensed from me in a RF library. Not only I lost the client but through the eyes of this client I was overcharging him. How can I justified charging $1000-$1500 for an internet license to him when the same track was available for $30 in a royalty library? Since then the problem has been resolved with the composer but I definitely didn’t want to be in this position any more. You see the problem? Since then I fixed the problem with the composer but this is the reason I don’t work with RF composers:)
Sorry fyi Johnny555 is my login name. I am Jean Anfossi from Music For Productions who wrote earlier in this thread:)
one of my client came back to me and said that he heard some of the same tracks he licensed from me in a RF library.
I do understand and appreciate the dilemma you were in but I hate to see my tracks sitting at an exclusive and hope someone picks up a license on one. CM seems to be doing okay with NE and getting decent sync licenses. If I was going to go with a small exclusive the best deal going (I think) is with SAS. Write to a brief and the exclusivity is for only one year if they don’t place it.
For example I worked with an excellent composer and my clients were paying top dollars for his music until one of my client came back to me and said that he heard some of the same tracks he licensed from me in a RF library. Not only I lost the client but through the eyes of this client I was overcharging him. How can I justified charging $1000-$1500 for an internet license to him when the same track was available for $30 in a royalty library?
As you’re in the business of charging healthy license fees (which is great!), perhaps you should have just avoided this issue completely by being exclusive. I don’t think any library can be non-exclusive without the risk of being undercut in price.
RF libraries are a god-send for composers starting out in their career. The expectations aren’t as high as other types of libraries, which helps them to get a foot in the door and to start building residual income. I think to try and scare them off is mean spirited. Besides Jean, your lowest tier fees aren’t much higher than sites like AS or even ML, and it’s no secret that the VAST majority of RF customers are only going to use their purchased music one time.
Some of the most successful composers in the higher end of licensing (trailers and commercials) still supply their older (or rejected) tracks to RF companies. Some of them are listed by name, yet I don’t see any problem for them – as long as the tracks are not also in the catalogs of companies that are commanding large license fees.
As you’re in the business of charging healthy license fees (which is great!), perhaps you should have just avoided this issue completely by being exclusive.
We are a semi-exclusive library. The composer in question was actually not allowed to place the same music in an RF library. Nevertheless you understand my point.
Besides Jean, your lowest tier fees aren’t much higher than sites like AS or even ML
Not sure who AS or ML is sorry! But not sure if you checked our rates properly. Our rates are per 0:30 unit (or portion therof).
Some of the most successful composers in the higher end of licensing (trailers and commercials) still supply their older (or rejected) tracks to RF companies. Some of them are listed by name, yet I don’t see any problem for them – as long as the tracks are not also in the catalogs of companies that are commanding large license fees.
Yes I guess some successful composers are adding their rejected or old tracks to RF libraries. too bad:(
Invariably, these discussions always turn into a debate over quality and the commodification of music, etc. etc.
Since any of us is able to gaze into the crystal ball, one should try PROD and RF as well, see what happens and hope in the factor that seems to have the decisive role…LUCK
Here’s one reality for which you do not need a crystal ball –supply and demand economics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand
Every year, music schools are graduating 1,000’s of new composers, who will each create 100’s and thousands of new pieces of music. Many music programs in US public schools are teaching kids in junior high and high school with Garage Band. Producing finished and competitive music tracks with programs like Garage Band is now as common as it was for kids to be in a “garage band” 40 years ago.
This is no longer an esoteric profession dominated by highly-skilled professionals. As such, the number of composers and the supply of music exceeds the demand for music — despite what the college reps tell you. If you noticed, in the Berklee clip (posted in another thread) they were touting the demand for music in podcasts. How much do you think that pays????
We are a semi-exclusive library. The composer in question was actually not allowed to place the same music in an RF library. Nevertheless, you understand my point.
I’ve always been an advocate of keeping one’s RF catalog as a separate entity to prevent this situation.
How can I justified charging $1000-$1500 for an internet license to him when the same track was available for $30 in a royalty library?
The real question is how can you justify charging that amount when any other music, not just that track, is available for $30 to even $500? That may not be sustainable.
You want to brand yourself as a cheap commodity or someone who as a good product to offer?
The new reality is that there are many composers who are offering a good product at a reasonable price.
Like Art, I have written for all types of libraries, (over the course of decades). I can tell you that people running some of the top exclusive libraries don’t really care if you have music in RF libraries. They’re more pragmatic. They do care about re-titling libraries and “performance free” libraries.
What MichaelL says at the end of the last post is basically my experience.
I have tracks with libraries like Extreme/Sony and I also have tracks with RF libraries. I use the same name for everything and no one has ever cared at all. What I have heard in top tier world as being a major problem is performance free. That’s both composer and publisher suicide in most people’s view.
Also.. for what it’s worth, I’ve probably done better in financial terms through RF than I have with even the top libraries, but I think that’s unusual. On the other hand, my most prestigious placements have been through the top tier libraries.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.