Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
We’re all over thinking this issue….just give your music to those who turn your music into money and don’t worry about anything else, and at the same time, try to sell it independently. Whatever the pros decide to do, I’ll adapt accordingly…and if that means all of my music reverts back to me and only me and I start the process from scratch, I am quite comfortable with that.
“A big percentage of re-titled music will simply age-out, before composers even need to worry about it.”
I have to disagree. I’m licensing and selling tracks 7-14 years old. Some of my “best sellers” were recorded in the 1998 to 2006 era. It’s already 2013.
I even placed one of my fathers recordings from 1973…Tape hiss and all….solo acoustic guitar. Orchestral music is here to stay…it does not age or feel out dated, nor does solo acoustic guitar or solo piano. Rock recycles…we seem to be in an “80’s retro” mode now in 2013…or even folk music…I am recording stuff over the last 2 days that sounds like Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin. This stuff will get used! My family is sitting on 50 tracks by my (deceased) Grandfather’s big band recorded in the 1960’s, but my father is being weird about putting it on the market…is this worthless music?….no way!…Is Miles Davis’ music worthless and dated? no…I just listened to his record on Friday night…
Michael, I am an “unknown” yet have been paid big budget money for big spots that I contracted myself throughout my career. Libraries can get the big bucks if they have savvy sales folks pitching a track. You are right when you say $1000 is more realistic for spots (coming from the library). However, I know of many situations where libraries have pulled in a lot more for composers, and I have actually been paid more than 1K from libraries for spots a few times now…
I Have a colleague who just pulled in 4K from a Music Dealers spot and even know about a guy who pulled in 38K for a song for Target….He is not at all a famous “known” writer.
“But to answer your question David, I think that writers should be able to do what you way.”
This statement is confusing? Grammar error?
Michael,
Exclusive and Non-exclusive Publishers are the one’s retitling, not composers.
“As far as signing exclusively goes, again for instrumental writers, what’s the big deal? Put 50 tracks in JP, 50 in SK (and whatever Crucial might accept) and see who delivers. Don’t lament signing 100 cues exclusively. To paraphrase Nike…JUST WRITE MORE.”
A lot of us are doing exactly this, but we are not telling these guys to re-title…retitling is THEIR policy. I have cues in both, they are both placing my cues, in some cases the exact same show! (not same episode). This has not presented any conflicts Michael. Neither publisher has claimed a conflict or felt as though the placement should go to their pub co as opposed to the other one because it’s all been squared away and documented accurately, and reviewed properly on cue sheets!
You see how I would get screwed out of royalties and revenue if I were forced to be in one library and not the other? You see how music supervisors don’t care where they get the background cue from as long as it works for their production?
I know I don’t when I occasionally act as “buyer”. I could care less if I find a cue in Dewolfe, but then perhaps find it in Extreme…and guess what? As buyer, I am not even going to make the time to search around in multiple catalogs. I am going to find what I need in one shop and finish the project and I will not complicate the negotiations and create bidding wars with 2 or 3 libraries.
Both SK and JP make their clients sign contracts that state that they can use cues in exchange for filling out cue sheets. I have been told by these companies that the cue sheets are reviewed by JP and SK. Exactly, where is the problem?
I feel like this discussion is all about convincing ourselves that a big problem exists.
Why should a composer not be able to have their cue in a shop that has a reputation for moving cues into shows, while simultaneously have that same cue in another shop (music Dealers for example) and have it placed into a national spot for $15,000? This can and does happen folks! I am sorry, but not every company has the same clients. Why should we (composers) be denied the maximum amount of licensing revenue and royalty revenue from our most popular cues?
The answer is…. we shouldn’t…. because none of us are getting rich from this business anyway.
“That genie is out of the bottle and will be impossible to put back.”
This one made me laugh a lot Art!…
You have that right.
Genie came out of the bottle and is flying all over the universe, and genie has procreated. Hence, lots of genies are flying around the universe. My thought about all of this is this: are things really that problematic? … I mean does everyone really feel as though we’re all getting the short end of the stick? Composers and Publishers? Is re-titling really that chaotic? Are publishers really pitching the EXACT same tracks for the exact same jobs and getting into “I’ll give you a better Price” war? I’d say – Perhaps Sometimes and we simply just don’t know, No, No, and No to all of my own questions.
P.S. I have not figured out the red bar thing for quotes.
@Axiomdreams…Just don’t get concerned about the noise on these discussion boards. Just write great tracks and feed them to the folks that turn them into money. I don’t have a tunesat account and I will never get one. It will probably just create anxiety and disappointment if I see info that my tracks are used more often than reported. Who has time to litigate anyway? It’s an imperfect system and always will be. Composers, just NEVER give up your rights to your intellectual property. Never ever sign a deal that says…”this is now only ours (the publisher) in perpetuity”…unless of course you are paid a “work for hire” or an advance for the cue.
Micaell…Laughing Out Loud!!
Cheers guys…off to Led Zeppelin 2! at House of Blues tonight…I hope it’s cool.
Not necessarily:
1) There are no upfront fees for gratis licensing.
2) There are many composers who make a lot of money from exclusive deals.
I am well aware of both points Michael, but my experience has been to make a lot of money with both up-front license fees into TV spots, and corporate videos with a non-exclusive publisher and do very well on the back end with this same publisher. Some, not all, but some of these same cues are also performing well in the back end arena with another NE publisher, and selling very well in a royalty free shop. All parties are winning in this scenario. If I am one day forced to pick one publisher, I will lose lots of revenue.
Michael,
I don’t think you need to be that worried as publisher IMHO. As publisher, you know who your clients are and I can only assume that you know which productions you are supplying music for. So if you get a cue sheet from a production company displaying the cues that were used…isn’t that the proof you and the Pros will have proving factually that your publishing company placed the cue ?…and not the other one? Aren’t publishers reviewing the list of cues used in a production prior to the cue sheet being filed? If not…why aren’t they?
Bottom line, if composers are forced to go exclusive: it’s great for publishers but a terrible loss of royalty and up-front license revenue for composers. Why should only publishers win in this business?
@ MichaelL. Here is a verbatim written response on 12-21-12 – 2 months ago to a question I presented to an ASCAP board member:
My Question:
“Will composers’ royalties be withheld if multiple publishers claim the same music cue due to a fingerprint or watermarked detection from two different music libraries?”
ASCAP Board Member’s verbatim answer:
“as of now neither ASCAP or BMI are using raw fingerprint data to pay royalties. They are using fingerprint data to corroborate existing information, or fill in holes in their data.
In the event there is a dispute over which publisher placed the cue, the composer should be paid anyway. I plan to bring this up at the ASCAP Board as Chair of the Operations and Administration Committee so we can get the procedure in place before it ever becomes a problem for composers. Thanks for your attention to this, and for bringing it to mine.”Folks, If the music library business shifts gears and demands that composers and publishers NOT re-title their tracks, this is no different than the industry saying “all music must be exclusively represented moving forward.” This is not good for composers and I do think we should all collectively fight against it. However, I am not worried about it because of the response above.
@Michael L. So what you are saying is that “detection technology” is going to replace cue sheets for determining royalty payouts? Also, I heard in a thread (2 months ago) that ASCAP recently made a deal with Soundmouse to handle their fingerprinting and detections, but when I spoke to this company they said this wan not the case.