Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Like Art, I used to re-name tracks too. And, like Art, I’m tending away from that now. It hasn’t seemed to make any difference for me either and keeping track of multiple titles is a bit of work.
Going forward, I’m writing specific material for each library I’m in regardless of their business model. I’m spending more time researching what does well in each library and taking that under consideration in lieu of spreading stuff across multiple markets. I’ve actually had very little overlap between libraries in terms of what does well to tell the truth. Also, of the several libraries I’m in, only a few consistently place for me.
In the past few years I’ve taken what I call my “base catalog” of about 125 tracks and put that in several different libraries to see what happens. Now that I’m finding libraries that work for me and others that don’t, I’m focusing a bit more.
That said, if you don’t mind the hassle of managing multiple titles for your tracks (ASCAP allows you to register several alternate titles) I think it’s an effective way to keep things tidy. I just don’t know that it’s worth the effort.
It’s been debated on MLR but I don’t know how much people comparison shop between different libraries. I’m sure someone is, but I don’t know how wide-spread it is. The 3 or 4 production people I’ve talked to about it have told me that they have one or two (usually RF) libraries that they typically use and stick to those. Usually they’re in such a hurry that when they find something that works that’s within budget, they just license it. The path of least-resistance has greal allure. That’s purely anecdotal of course.
I’ve read several times about music superviors complaining about the same tracks showing up in multiple libraries. However, that seems to be more an issue in the NE/broadcast arena. Again, just speculating.
People with the least amount of money to spend, expect the most.
By God, it’s the truth. It really is.
Here’s the ratio: The smaller the payday, the greater the number of revisions requested.
One would expect the inverse but no.
I was kind of surprised that I had to pay to submit but it was only $250.00 per track. I think the exposure will lead to bigger things.
I think it depends on how each library operates.
For instance, there is one formerly non-exclusive library I give stuff to. They take awhile to process what you give them and while they are processing, you can’t upload anything else. So, in that case it makes sense to save up a big batch and give it to them all at once.
In another instance, an RF library I give stuff to, lets you upload as much as you want, whenever you want. Doesn’t matter if you have submitted material waitning to go on-line or not.
Other libraries are very extensive in their tagging requirements and batch uploading to them can turn into a day-long chore, so one or two at time can be more attractive.
Just a few examples.
I was thinking about submixes for my shorter edits the other day. In general, end users love sub-mixes. I’d say that I sell just as many subs as I do full tracks. Sometimes I feel like the full tracks sort of end up being showcase pieces that lead people to the submixes. I’d say it’s worth a try. Uploading can get a tad unwieldy at some point, I suppose, but I think I’m gonna start doing this.
You know, you should look on the long term: if you submit to the “wrong” libraries for your style of music, you will loose more time than you have saved.
-
Spending all the time to upload and tag
, just to see your tracks rejected after 1-2 months can be quite time (& Mood) consuming as well.
This is absolutely excellent advice. +1
If I have it, I send it off via yousendit in minutes. If I don’t have it, there’s usually few days lead time, so there’s plenty of time to write what they want. The cue then goes into one of my libraries.
This is almost invariably my experience.
I do however feel slightly vexed that these things were not stated at the outset, before I paid the submission fee.
I don’t blame you.
I have tried the one-off pay for opportunities model a few times in the past. After a handful of submissions, I did get a few tracks into a small library (non-exclusive) but after two or three years there has been no action there whatsoever. I would be somewhat surprised if there ever were.
The particular service that I used is above board and fine I think, so I have no criticisms of them. However, I came to feel that submitting for posted opportunities could get quite expensive over time so I stopped doing it.
You make a great point about the relative dearth of information and control for the composer that can happen on the front-end of these things. It’s another downside of the whole model for me. I just don’t care to bother with it any more.
Someone here who’s had success with this type of thing might want to chime in.
There are so many composers out there, I’m kind of surprised that any music-surpervisor or producer would feel the need to turn to a service in order to anonymously post a call for music. Once they get submissions, they still have to sift through it all. But, heck, what do I know?