- This topic has 22 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 8 months ago by Barry.
- November 25, 2013 at 1:07 pm #13650eucaGuest
Sorry more advice, we must have posted at the same time.
+1 on seeing your name on a cue sheet with the big boys and gals! I had one along side the Stones, I thought that was pretty cool.November 25, 2013 at 1:48 pm #13651
ASCAP does a much, much better job in that department. I can see the entire cue sheet, every writer, every publisher, etc.
The only problem is that there are many mistakes on ASCAP cue sheets. Missing writer/publishing info, incorrect writer/publishing info and incorrect timings.November 25, 2013 at 1:56 pm #13653The DudeGuest
The only problem is that there are many mistakes on ASCAP cue sheets. Missing writer/publishing info, incorrect writer/publishing info and incorrect timings.
Wouldn’t that be the production company’s issue, not necessarily unique to ASCAP?November 25, 2013 at 3:00 pm #13654More adviceGuest
I honestly have not seen suspicious mistakes. At ASCAP you see everything on that entire cue sheet, every writer, every publisher, the name of the episode, the date it aired (sometimes)…etc…whereas at BMI you see nothing in advance, just your statement tells the story of what happened with your cues and occasionally we get that roll up I was talking about earlier.November 25, 2013 at 4:20 pm #13655AdviceParticipant
I saw an interview with Sheryl Crow once where she mentioned how exciting it is to be on the same cue sheets as More Advice. :p
Just razzin’ ya, M.A.
😀November 25, 2013 at 10:21 pm #13658
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 #13662
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.