[Lupo]

yes you can

[Lupo]

to go back to the original issue… I’ve counted a few composers being very successful at those $15-30 library sites. the number of sales they had was clearly justifying a seemingly ridiculous price tag.

to be clear, the most successful tracks were all very similar, decently produced and clearly not the next Stravinsky piece

[Lupo]

jbridgem is only for VST unfortunately…

[Lupo]

Logic X is built for 64bit operation and under those circumstances you’ll see some excellent improvements, ie better cpu management.

I know it’s a pity you cannot use 32bit plug ins but the bridge solution was never a really good one and at some point we’ll have to move forward to better grounds, 64bit for example 🙂

[Lupo]

thanks for your replies..

@MichaelL I agree with you but, If you sign up the same track with different non exclusive libraries you loose control and can’t prevent the same track to be sold at different prices.
I’ve read in another thread that for you control of your catalog is paramount and retitling is no good anymore, to which I agree, but how do you maintain control? paradoxically the only way that comes to mind is to sign up with an exclusive library, or sell the same track – always without giving away publishing – with the same title.

..or just write more…

[Lupo]

the idea to me came from the film director who placed in the rough cut some solo instrumental music which he could not really afford 🙂

[Lupo]

Mark Lewis wrote: The problem comes in when you are selling the same exact music for $0.99 on one site and $99.00 on another.

Or by thinking that by changing the title and composer name of the same song that youtube contentID or any other fingerprinting system will not be able to find it.

Mark I’d like to pick your brains on the subject above and take your it a step further.

I did retitling in the past with good success (infact I was asked by a big publisher to do so) but limited to one publisher only.
Now like others here it starts to look like retitling is not a good idea anymore (various watermarking and detection systems coming up) and keeping ownership is important.

Could a composer simply sell a track without changing its name through different libraries? that would work probably only with non exclusive libraries not claiming back end royalties.
Basically the library will act as a facilitator/supervivor and get a share of the licensing fee, what do you think?

[Lupo]

we should really listen to something you did, but yes I did a few and placed them in motion pictures quite easily (meaning they’re easy to work with for editors).
That however was pitched by me, not a library, directly.

[Lupo]

On the other hand, they told me that if a track gets pitched in the US, I need to give them the information concerning the client: The Cue sheet is not automatically transferred from the US PRO to the UK PRO. That looks quite complicated…

they always ask you that so that they can keep an eye on that particular event (ie a tv broadcast you let them know about)

royalties coming from cuesheets will eventually make it over the pond…eventually…and with a lot of overheads charged on it

[Lupo]

Hello Eduardo,
why would you want to be a publishers for starters?
being a publisher per se wouldn’t really grant you more royalties per se.

being a publisher makes sense if you’re also publishing other people’s work and it could be a nice extra card to play when negotiating royalties with another publisher.

Incidentally PRS would not allow you to be a publisher unless you can prove you have publishing contracts in place with 3rd party composers and ‘media’ company (a production house for example).

hope this helps

lupo

[Author]

Posts