- This topic has 22 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 3 months ago by Barry.
November 25, 2013 at 10:21 pm #13658Art MunsonKeymaster
I honestly have not seen suspicious mistakes.
I answered on the other thread but will repeat here.
It’s tough to look at every “episode” cue sheet…
You have to look at every cue sheet. It’s a very granular approach but there is money in them thar hills!
I was able to look at a friends ASCAP account and he pointed out many cue sheet mistakes including not listing the correct writer, no writer listed, missing writer, missing publisher as well as incorrect timings.
From his years of experience, tracking his own earnings, he calculates over 50% of cue sheets have mistakes!November 25, 2013 at 10:39 pm #13659music_proParticipant
Art, we want it! I will be the first customer.November 26, 2013 at 5:21 am #13660AdviceParticipant
When the PROs go with fingerprint monitoring (a la Tunesat), do you think the process will be more or less accurate? Even though I hear that fingerprint monitoring may be 20% (or more) off, I wonder if it would have to be more accurate that the current manual process.
It would seem natural that a manual process whereby music sups deal with mounds of paper, trying to get hundreds and hundreds of cues right, would inherently be very error prone. Nothing subversive there. Just the human factor.
I also want to mention regarding cue sheet errors that it stands to reason that errors can be in either direction– in your favor or against your favor. For example, incorrect cue length can go either way. So, I would HOPE that when you have a lot of volume out there, some things average out.November 26, 2013 at 8:34 am #13662Art MunsonKeymaster
I also want to mention regarding cue sheet errors that it stands to reason that errors can be in either direction- in your favor or against your favor.
Actually what we find is that in the majority of the time the mistakes are not in your favor.November 26, 2013 at 11:03 am #13664More adviceGuest
@Advice…hmmm…isn’t the discussion of fingerprinting tracks just an on-going speculative question for 4 years now? I hate to say it, but if Tunesat detections became the way we’re paid, all the PROS would run out of money and fast!
Tunesat detections can not tell anyone who the publisher is, especially for those who decided to send their catalogs to 5 or 10 different re-title publishers and now have 5 or 10 titles floating around for all their tracks.
A Human being, a music supervisor, or assistant…whatever, is supposed to manually time the length of every cue on a show and log the cues used, and credit the publisher and writer where they found the cue. was it SK? JP? AN? P? Ex? S? UP? etc.
How can that “human data entry and verification” system possibly change? Someone has to watch the show, listen and time every cue used. I just don’t see how that process becomes automated in an environment where you have competing dialogue or voice overs, over the music. And whose to say that any technology out there can get it right when many waveforms look the same? What would you trust more? Humans or computers analyzing wave forms?
We are all dependent on someone (a human being) doing a data entry job that is very uninteresting work, and doing it with accuracy so we get paid properly.November 26, 2013 at 11:57 am #13665AdviceParticipant
I didn’t want to start a discussion about how fingerprinting might be an issue with re-titles. I hope we can stay away from that whole can of worms.
Based on the input here that the manual processes are as error-prone as stated, I was simply asking the question if we think electronic means would be *more* or *less* accurate? More Advice: You’ve raised some issues as to why electronic detection may have problems. But if (let’s speculate) it was 75-80% reliable, would that be an improvement over the manual methods?
Just food for discussion about accuracy. Nothing hot or controversial, LOLNovember 26, 2013 at 12:30 pm #13666More adviceGuest
I have no intent to get controversial and I have cues in 3 places that place my works so I also have no interest in a shift fingerprinting our master waves or AIF’s.
In my mind, I honestly believe that a human being with a stop watch, watching the show, and a list of cues in a spreadsheet is the best, most reliable way to document cues on a show. This is exactly how a pro music supervisor said she does her work.
So what is needed to make this work properly?
1. A human Being doing the work of watching and listening to the show
2. A stop watch
5. A spreadsheet containing the list of cues used and who wrote them and published them.
This is all my opinion, but like I said for those of us who have the SAME cues with 2 or more publishers, It is NOT in our interests to see the human being taken out of the process of creating cue sheets. That will never work anyway….IMHO.November 26, 2013 at 12:52 pm #13667BarryGuest
Just to add to the discussion, the Australian PRO APRA has moved to digital detection/watermarking for advertising jingles. As a lot of us know getting paid decent performance royalities for tv/radio ads is difficult. It’s a good move, but at present it only applies to custom cues specfically written for commericals. But it’s a sensible step forward for a pro that doesn’t actually provide any detail of usage on their statements…