Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Absolutely not! And it would be a violation of your exclusive contract so nope, not legal.
Well there is no absolute right or wrong in the universe but my *opinion* is that mentioning other libraries is tacky and could possibly turn some folks off. Libraries are competitors.
Just because something you did didn’t negatively affect you doesn’t mean it’s the best style in general.
I leave it as my opinion for better or worse. 😀
To weed out the weak, thin the herd. 😛
I wouldn’t list *libraries* – definitely not! However, mentioning some of your actual Film/TV placements is a good idea.
It is fine to also register the track with ASCAP. Just make sure that you provide the exact same info in your registration (composers, publishers, splits) as your BMI writer did with theirs. In fact, one library I work with now insists on registration with PROs from each co-writer who has a different PRO.
Not sure I understand your post since you mention “mechanicals” with respect to PRO. PROs don’t handle mechanicals, only public performances (radio, TV, stage, etc.). At least, that’s how it is in the US, not sure if it’s different in other countries. Please clarify to help us better answer. Thanks.
Yes, often the information we get on international payments is lacking the details we get from domestic. Some country’s PROs are better/worse than others.
It could be you’re missing something on a visual scan. But also, I’ve seen ASCAP make adjustments to the numbers now and then, sometimes temporary. sometimes permanent. I’ve always found things a little flaky since they went to the new website.
One thing I’ve done now and then is painstakingly expand every one (the + sign) and copy/paste the whole thing into a document to have my own record of everything on a given date. But it’s a pain.
Just a note that my calling Pond5 “low tier” could be the wrong choice of words. I was trying to say it’s not a very difficult library to get tracks accepted into and their market generally is not high paying license fees. I’m sure they get occasional higher end placements but for the most part, you are selling tracks to indie films, corporate projects, videos, etc. for under $100 a pop, often MUCH less than that.
That being said, there are folks that make reasonably good money with RF sites like Pond5, by sheer volume. Nothing wrong with making many $25 or $50 sales per month!!
My main point was it’s hard to say “Pond5” and “MusicBed” in the same breath. They are very different animals in terms of markets, how selective they are, potential sync fees and PRO money, etc.
Hope I didn’t rattle any cages by calling Pond5 “low tier”.
cyberk91
Sorry I didn’t have to time to explain in more depth. I’m sure there are other posts somewhere on MLR and discuss the different types of music libraries. Maybe Art can point to some.A few things to keep in mind.
It’s best to get to know the difference between RF libraries (e.g. Pond5) and those that do broadcast TV and film. (e.g. Jingle Punks, Scorekeepers, Musicbed). Totally different markets and sometimes music that works in one market does not work in the other.
Some libraries are non-exclusive, others exclusive. Are you willing to sign some tracks exclusively? JP and Scorekeepers are pretty much exclusive only now. So you wouldn’t be able to take the same tracks you have in Pond5 and put them in these libraries. New tracks would be OK though.
You really can’t say Pond5, Musicbed, Jingle Punks, and Scorekeepers in the same sentence (so to speak). SP and SK are similar but the other 2 are very different:
Pond5: RF, lower tier, non-broadcast uses such as videos, indie films, corporate. Not very hard to get tracks accepted.
SK and JP: Reality TV background cue focused. Middle-bar to get into. Mainly exclusive right now. Sync fees less common, mainly back end PRO. (JP sometimes gets sync fee money)
Musicbed: Higher-bar, difficult to get into. Film/TV, advertising. Might be more sync fee focused.
It can be problematic to lump a list of libraries together without separating them into categories.
You’ll see many times whereby the music editor used a piece of your track and then slid over the sting ending to make it work at the end of a scene. Being able to wrap up a scene is critical to them. Ending on the root chord is a good idea, don’t get fancy and end on some alternate chord. Also, this is why your track should always end in the same key it started in. Modulations whereby and the end you go up a 1/2 or whole step for “lift” like many older songs did, is a no-no.
For short edits such as 15 or 30, no reason why you can’t shorten the tail by fading the tail out earlier. As long as there still is a defined ending. Having a long tail in the full version can sometimes make the short edits easier since you have more to work with (e.g. room to shorten the end) to make it fit the 15 or 30 without jumping through as many hoops.
And, without getting into debates about specific services, there are some that screen so the client doesn’t have to wade through all the crap and others that just pass everything along. Screening obviously saves the client a lot of time. (Please no debates about any particular service’s screening).
Toby
I think when it comes to high dollar placements direct with supervisors or ad agencies, odds of the placement through a paid service are very, very small. Maybe not zero, but very, very tiny.Where I think the opps are with paid services are: (1) Libraries looking to build their catalog. Maybe a new library or one looking to expand. (2) Libraries looking for music in a specific niche that is harder to find. (Maybe 1930’s jazz, crooner songs, types of world music for example) (3) Smaller budget indie films.
Regarding #1, I definitely built relationships with libraries through paid services which have paid off, either in actual placements, or at least the opportunity to put more songs in the library.
😀