Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Don’t forget to slide those endings around and create a package of edits, 30 sec, 60 sec, etc to go along with your full length track. Customers love edits and request them all the time.
Good to hear that this is actually requested from customers. I`ve had my doubts about the value of making these edits because I hardly sell anything but the full tracks on RF sites.
Without doubt this thread is full of advice 😉
I`ll re-arrange a bit, play a new main melody over the backing track and offer it to library B
I have of course not heard the tracks and the actual changes you`ve made, but in general you should be ok here. To be on the safe side maybe change the tempo, key and instrumentation a bit but it probably should not matter.
If you think about it: If this isn`t allowed then there is no way anybody can come up with a new blues tune without getting into trouble 😉
Be a bit careful if the song has any very specific elements that would easily be recognized. I wouldn`t dare to copy the piano intro from Let It Be, and just play a new melody over it f. ex.
Oh thanks MichaelL. I never would have thought of that.
Much appreciated!! 🙂A different mix will not be enough in legal terms, so if your planning on submitting exclusive I would be very careful with that.
There is no percentage or specific number of similar notes allowed. But chord progression and grooves can in general not be copyrighted, so you are not required to change anything but the melody.
But anyway it might be a good idea to f.ex change the key, make some minor changes to the groove and write a completely new melody over it.
If you just change a few notes in the original cue, it might be enough to legally call it a new song. But, depending on the intended use, I`m not sure that`s what I would have done.
Personally I`m going to solve the fingerprinting by adding an extra cowbell for all of my different versions of a track. Re-titiling adapts into Re-cowbelling and I can still go non-exclusive with all the libraries I want 😉
@Blind I’m pretty sure it was mentioned somewhwere that it might happen that the PROs wont pay for retitled tracks. Sorry if I misunderstood something. English is not my first language.
Well I’m still not convinced here, but I’m happy to hear your different opinions on this issue. For sure I won’t go ahead and retitle all my tracks first thing tomorrow morning 😉
The royalty system, as it stands, wasn’t designed for that, just like many of our highways weren’t desinged for the amount of traffic they now carry. As a result, there are traffic jams
But where I live they constantly build new and better highways, and as far as I know you are still allowed to drive old cars on all of them…. 😉
But to be serious, I don`t doubt that this is a bit messy and the PROs would like re-titling to go away. As I said I have never re-titled for various reasons. But my biggest concern is not that the PROs all of a sudden decides that they will no longer pay royalties for re-titled tracks. This will cause too much trouble for so many of their composers.
@Michael…. I do get your point and I know there is a possibility that this could happen. But personally I don`t think it will.I have never re-titled myself, but I probably will sometime very soon. I signed the JP deal a while ago, but have not submitted any tracks yet because I`ve not made up my mind about this re-titling issue.
I know that the PRO`s have the power to make re-titling almost worthless, but I really don`t see why they should do it. Is it not the PROs job to serve the composers and publishers and make sure they get the money they deserve for their music? I don`t think it`s the PRO`s job to determine how the business should work, and I really don`t believe they will develop and trust a fingerprinting technology that will make the work of so many of their composers absolute worthless. I can see that fingerprinting will cause some problems, but I just don`t believe the solution will be to stop paying for re-titled tracks.
What concerns me the most about re-titling is that music supervisors might not want to use re-titled tracks in the future. But that`s just a guess and right now I actually think it`s worth the risk.
Way to low yes. That youtube video will probably not do much for you when it comes to “getting your name out there”, so there`s not much reason for you to do it for free. Try at least $30 like Art suggested.
"You're probably registered as writer with your PRO but unless you're registered (separately) as a publisher (for your own or even others' music) you don't receive any publishing royalties.Maybe I`m far out here, but as far as I know this is not true. If there is no publishing registered for a track, then the composer will get the whole 200% of the track I think. Both the writers share and 100% of the publishing.
Please correct me if I`m wrong here.
In most cases composers would sell on multiple RF sites anyway and I think that competition among RF sites are much stronger than the competition they would feel from composers setting up their own sites. It would take a lot of advertising and admin to really compete with the big RF libraries and most composers would probably not aim for that.
But this package from Mark Lewis would be a great option for composers who has already got some clients they work with and would like to offer their catalogue to them.
As far as pricing concerns I`m not sure if you would benefit very much from selling tracks cheaper on your own site. My guess is that most customers would probably go to your site because they really wants to buy your music and in one way or another have been pointed to your site, and probably not because they are searching/googling and shopping around for the best price.
I think we can conclude that as composers the only solution is to destroy the internet. Where shall we begin lads?
I`ll unplug the European internetwire this afternoon 😉
Can someone take care of the American side ?