Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I was very pleased with my ASCAP quarter. One of my best ever.
D_I, you know the formulas vary widely according to which network, time of day, etc. So one play in prime time last quarter on a decent paying network could trump 20 plays on a smaller network in the middle of the night. Just keeping feeding the flames and they will grow.
Let me start out by saying I have the same tracks in multiple re-title libraries so there is no holier than thou attitude here.
The prefix or suffix method solves some problems but not all. Even if the end user can easily recognize up front that they have the same track from multiple sources, it doesn’t take away from issues than *MAY* create. What we’re seeing a lot of is in the so called “lower end” of the market– blanket deals for cable TV shows. Budgets are tights and no matter how the tracks are named, paying multiple times for the same music is not cost effective. And, disputes over who really is the publisher when a track is used cost time and money as well. It’s already happened to me whereby a cue sheet incorrectly credited publisher A when I know it was publisher B by the title. I see all the time that my tracks in J-land directly compete with the same tracks in S-land on the same shows.
I think if we are going to criticize libraries for creating re-titling and this situation with the same tracks in many libraries, we have to at least accept our share of the responsibility if we, as composers, put our tracks in multiple libraries.
I did plenty of that, still do with older tracks, but I am cautious with newer material. So I’m as “guilty” as anyone else, for lack of a better word.
I’m not talking about putting a track in both an RF library that doesn’t really do much broadcast work and a conventional library that pitches TV. They are in very different markets.
Let’s not blame the libraries for creating this situation without acknowledging the role composers played.
Develop relationships. Be a professional, not a prima donna. You won’t regret it.
Very well said! I think what people forget in this whole discussion about whether or not TV producers will accept non-exclusive or only exclusive is it can very much depend on WHO is providing the music. That’s what the phrase “trusted source” is all about. If you are a composer who they have dealt with directly over the years and they feel is a reliable, trustworthy, professional… well that carries a lot of weight. Some newbie who contacts them out of the clear blue with attitude… not the same. A library such as C***** with an impeccable reputation? Or another also ran library full of the same tracks as everyone else?
Another point is end users are probably more concerned when dealing with libraries as far as exclusivity then trusted composers. They know that libraries are full of duplicate tracks right now. And library conflicts are more on the radar. That’s not to say that a composer can’t give them a track that’s also in libraries and cause an issue. But I think (in some cases! Not Gospel!) non-exclusive libraries are getting a bad image with them right now.
I get annoyed when people view libraries switching to exclusive as the “big bad libraries” trying to give us a raw deal. They are doing what they need to do to survive as businesses in an extremely competitive market with low margins. If their businesses didn’t need these changes, they wouldn’t do it. However, we all have choices. I personally don’t sign a lot of exclusives yet.
As Michael said, do what works for you. It won’t be the same for everyone…. And be a pro. Avoid attitude. That will always bite you in the butt.
TV Composer Guy… While the jury still is out on this while exclusive vs. non-exclusive, I wanted to comment on the library you mentioned (“C….”) that is still very successful with major network and film placements while remaining non-exclusive.
It could very well be that because they established themselves SO well early on in this game and have such a great reputation with the sups they service, they were able to continue as non-exclusive, simply adding tags to track titles. Libraries with less well established relationships and reputation may not have the same luxury.
It also seems that the lower end blanket license market, such as for cable TV, is very affected here by this whole issue. I don’t think J…. and S…. are pushing exclusive just for the heck of it. Cable TV production companies see themselves paying blanket fees to multiple companies, only to find they are seeing a lot of the same tracks. So they feel they are wasting money.
All that being said, I also continue to get non-exc placements for those blanket cable deals and can’t say if that will dry up in the next few years or not.
I have to agree with you D_I… With numbers, you don’t know what’s really behind them. When I read accounts of people’s experiences I get a sense of both who the person is (most of the time) and what their experience was. Sometimes someone says negative things about a library but I can tell by the tone and attitude in their posts, that there is more to the story. Some people will always blame “the other guy” when they are not successful. Numerical ratings mask all that.
Someone can bitch how little money they made from a library but what do we know about their tracks? Is it cheap crap on an old Casio keyboard? Did they put in reasonable effort tagging their tracks (where applicable)? I remember someone posted all sorts of nasties about a particular RF library years back. One of the principals of the library chimed in and posted how that person had almost no track tags or description entered!
Personally, I like MLR better as a discussion forum vehicle and not a place for ratings. The tag line, “Music creators rating the music libraries” bothers me. I’d prefer “Music creators discussing…” or “Music creators sharing information…”
Just my 2 cents
😀Although it would be interesting to see earnings/track averages on libraries (I think it would be better for the RF model), it goes hand in hand with people making judgments about libraries in general. People’s experienced vary SO much according to the type of music they write, the (perceived by the end user community) quality of the tracks, etc.
We see it all the time. One person gets tons of placements with Library A and none with Library B, while someone else has the opposite experience.
There are reasons why I never liked ratings of any kind at all. Too many variables and faulty conclusions drawn.
It is public domain, at least according to my internet search which turned up: http://www.pdinfo.com/Public-Domain-Music-List.php
🙂
I think someone mentioned this before. The RF market serves different types of customers with different budgets. Projects needing music can vary all over the board from film school videos to full blown broadcast use. A student or film festival video may only be able to pay $50-$100 (or even less), while larger budget projects may be fine with $250-$500.
So I don’t think there is any easy way to set minimum prices in such a general sense. You have to know what market you are serving the most.
If, of course, you have a history of selling tracks you can look at what types of clients your music attracts most and what price ranges. That is, assuming there is a pattern.
Footnote: My experience with RF is limited so grain of salt here.
I read an article once that ASCAP does not accept Tunesat detections as a means to adjust royalty payments. Not sure what the latest is on that.
To all future library composers,wannabes, hobbyists and amateurs(especially those using loops) the library buisness is now closed. There are too many of you, making too much music (most of which lacks artistic merit). Please stop and go away, because you are causing the value of my labor (I use the term loosly) to go down.
In the words of Kramer… “I’m out!” 😀 🙂 😉
Did anyone else notice the new listings on film music job wire? A library in Nashville is after music for pilot on ABC & also the winter Olympics coverage on NBC. Both were wanting NON EXCLUSIVE tracks for major network placements…. Nothing more needs to be said, the sky isn’t falling, major networks still use non exclusive tracks, some libraries are trying their best to dupe composers into signing their lives away.
Keep in mind that any library can run a listing so they can collect tracks in the hopes of pitching for future events like these. These ads are blind so we don’t know anything about the library running the listing. They could be anything from a startup doing wishful thinking to a well connected library with a good shot at these types of placements. You can’t conclude ANYTHING from this listing.
I am *NOT* saying that tracks have to come from an exclusive library for use by NBC for these events. Just saying that the fact that a library wants to sign tracks non-exclusively to pitch here means very little.
I have to wonder. Did WE (myself very much included) contribute to this problem by putting the same tracks in multiple re-title libraries that service the same markets? I’m not talking about RF… Talking about libraries that send tracks to TV production companies.
When calling the publishers greedy, were we as composers greedy?
Cobra
I don’t think the library you mentioned requires 20 tracks to get started. Unless they’ve changed it since I started, the requirement of 20 is only to be featured as a hot new artist. AFAIK, you can start with any number. Of course, it usually takes a fair number of tracks to make any real money.My suggestion is to submit those 15 tracks to non-exclusive RF libraries and also non-exclusive libraries that focus on broadcast placements where there are backend (PRO) royalties. Many libraries discussed on this site place orchestral cues on TV. Of course, I don’t know your music but if libraries with decent track records accept your tracks, it’s a good indication they can be placed.
😀
They want $199 (the 50% 0ff sale price!) for their directory. I can’t imagine this information is worth anywhere near that much. There are directories out there MUCH cheaper such as one you can buy off filmmusic.net.
And many people think just having contact info for music sups will make them successful. It takes a lot of business savvy, time, patience, and the right goods. These sups get bombarded by composers contacting them every day. You have to really stand out from the crowd to get noticed. Doable, yes… But FAR from easy.
This is one reason many successful composers work through libraries. It allows them to focus on what they do best, making great music, while letting others do the schmoozing with the sups.
😀