[cozyhand3]

Hi Beatslinger!

That’s a really interesting idea about “keeping the song instrumental until the hooks.”
Hmmm…interesting indeed. Could make the song much shorter too.
I’m sorry, but what do you mean exactly when you say, Minus 1 for live performances? Do you mean, Minus the lyric?

Some really good food for thought, Beatslinger!
Thank you for your time and weighing in.

Jesse

[cozyhand3]

Hey Michael,
I believe you’re right that I’m having trouble taking no for an answer. Your second point especially hit home. That is, making a “new version” at this point (not afraid to re-write at all) would be too painful:) The story/lyric is locked in my head and by reducing the amount of words, in this particular case, would tell a story I’m not willing to undertake…SO… you’re right again. I have grown too attached to it to make a new version. I won’t be pitching it as is. I’ll chalk it up to a lesson learned!

Thanks so much, Michael. I appreciate you taking the time to weigh in.

Jesse

[cozyhand3]

Hi Jason…

While composing instrumentals is not what I do, I will say that I found the piece very moving, tender and inspiring! Thanks for sharing and congratulations!!
Jesse

[cozyhand3]

…Hmmm…this is stuff that rolls around in my head…even if it never happens I wonder about it. I guess it stems from perhaps not knowing a lot about a company as I research and they are on shaky ground and where that would leave me. Maybe the best policy is just stay with NE’s that have a solid reputations:)

Thank you Advice

[cozyhand3]

Hi Keith,
I’m more of a song guy (not composer). FWIW, Walking With A Strut stands out the most for me.
Good luck!

Jesse

[cozyhand3]

Dogged,
Thank you. It’s an academic question. That makes sense. Never gave the up anything in the first place. Didn’t think it through enough.
Sorry. I appreciate your time.
Jesse

[cozyhand3]

Hey Benjamin,
I don’t know a thing about writing like this, but have to say, I simply love it!

Jesse

[cozyhand3]

I see. That makes sense. The filmmaker would pay a negotiated licensing fee to the Lib and the Lib spits that with the writer? Done. In your example, at such time the writer removes their music from the Lib, the writer would only continue receiving back-end from their PRO for broadcast TV and/or film? I’m guessing that for a “training video” they wouldn’t receive anything though.

Thanks for your help, Michael
Jesse.

[cozyhand3]

Yes you seem to be correct. They say, “(Non-exclusive, month-to-month, no publishing or performance royalties taken, no re-titling. We split upfront master/sync fee 50/50 with you.)”
They also state: ” The licenses granted by XXX pursuant to the authority of this Agency Agreement
may be in perpetuity for life of any applicable copyrights and worldwide or for such lesser term
or territory as XXX in its sole discretion shall decide. XXX will not grant an exclusive license in
any musical composition or sound recording from Client’s Catalog unless it has received Client’s
prior authorization to do so.”

I’m reaching out for clarification on this part.

Thanks again LAwriter. I appreciate your time.

Jesse

[cozyhand3]

Thank you LA writer! Very helpful.

When you say: ” If they do not re-title, most likely their business is NOT in broadcast uses. Or any form of broadcast which makes anything significant on back end. ”
Sorry, stay with me, but I’m looking at a non-excl., as I recall RF (terminate deal in 30 days if you want model) and on their web-site they provide a number of TV placements they’ve had. They don’t re-title. Are not TV placements considered “broadcast” use?

No, I do not wish to write production music. No desire or ability.

FWIW, I’ve been with an exclusive lib., exclusively for years. I have 85 songs with them generating 6+k a year. Not making a lot and by now don’t expect to. I’d just like to explore the non-exclusive world, find a couple good ones that would be receptive to what I do and works them, and see if sharing sync fees and back-end, or (in the aforementioned case not share in back-end) generate more income per placement than what I make from the exclusive lib.

Thanks, again, LAwriter

[cozyhand3]

Thank you, Michael. I appreciate it!

[cozyhand3]

Music 1234,
Hmm…Is it because RF companies don’t take any back-end money they would just use my original title for cue sheets and such and all back-end royalties would go to the me? Does that explain it?

Jesse

[cozyhand3]

Music 1234…thanks a lot for breaking it down for me! I’m very grateful.

However, if you (or anyone else) would be so kind, what about, for example, other non-exclusive companies which do not re-title the same song(s)? Some companies re-title (I get that) and some not. But how do the non-exclusive companies that don’t re-title (without a unique identifier) keep it straight regarding cue sheets/PRO’s to ensure each entity is paid appropriately?

Thanks, again!
Jesse

.

[cozyhand3]

Hi Michael,

Brief and concise! You made some excellent points. This helps me better understand.

Thank you for your response, Michael.

Jesse

[cozyhand3]

“Many of the issues they bring up their own member libraries don’t always follow. The PMA is basically an organization for music library companies. They are not particularly “composer friendly”.

Thanks Art. That helps me. I appreciate you weighing in!

Jesse

[Author]

Posts