Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Traditionally separate pieces of music, but there is at least one new library that has a 60,30, bumper and sting all within one 2:00-ish minute track.
Music1234 – I used to be right in line with your numbers, and even today I’d love to agree with you, but I think you’d better up that number to 1500. A single guy might be able to make it on 1000 now, but the target has risen IMO. 1500 should be enough to live on modestly for a couple. Add kids and…… 🙂 maybe 2k??? Oh, want to live in San Francisco…. LOL
Films are expensive to make. In terms of time, manpower, money, etc..
Getting your music into a film by “giving it away” is not a solid or workable plan. IME, it’s more difficult to get it in by giving it away than it is by doing your due diligence and developing a relationship and charging a reasonable fee for your music. Film makers want to associate with gifted pros who can take their projects to a higher level, not with amatures who will do anything to get a placement.
How you present yourself (first impressions and all) will set the tone of your future relationship.
Now, you can get someone to take your music for free easily. But for them to sync it to picture and keep it in the film all the way through post production is a different story. Even great music from gifted professionals that was licensed legitimately finds it’s way to the cutting room floor often.
Getting someone to take your music for free isn’t much better than your mom telling you you’re awesome. Finding a film collaborator that you can bend and make deals with is success.
It always blows my mind that people think that giving something away is a plan for future success. Only in the music business I guess.
Best of luck with your dreams and plans. My $0.02.
No problem – hope you get paid!! I have no direct experience with South American countries. BMI handles that for me, and it’s about as transparent as a brick wall. LOL I have no idea how it gets to BMI (well, I do have a general idea, but no specifics).
First off – I LOVE to mix in surround. Very cool. But I have found no instances of companies in the library world that want to pay for it. What is becoming more standard though is stems. Stereo stems are helpful in surround mixing, and can help offset not having a 5.1 mix.
Maybe they (your publisher) are just behind (let’s hope), or perhaps they renamed the track(s) because they had tracks in the library already with the same name (common) — but theoretically — you should still be able to collect if BMI received a cue sheet from the production company that used it.
Pete – it’s happened to me as well. Sometimes they go bye, bye for good, and then sometimes they pop up hours later. Unexplainable from my perspective, but what Art says is good advice any time you’re on the internet.
I’m kind of at a loss as to why anyone would sign away their writers, publishers and master rights for £150. That’s crazy IMO.
At this point, I’m not willing to do it for $1500US while KEEPING 100% writers.
The wave of the future?
Let’s hope not.
Some people are in it to **** the industry as hard and as fast as they can, hoping to score before the bottom falls out.
These types of subscription models only benefit ONE side – the company – no matter how much they try to convince us otherwise. I actually had one try to tell me how great this type of subscription plan was going to be for my career @ 0.10 cents a track. I honestly laughed.
If they ended up being successful, it would have tanked my career almost instantly. Any composer who knowingly puts their music into one of these scams is a fool, uninformed, or just plain nuts.
Sorry, I apologize in advance if any of you have done this. Consider what it will do to your other enterprises. It will eat them alive. If your clients can download your music at TEN CENTS a track, how is that good for anyone. I can’t even see how the aggregators can make any money. Insane….
Yes, and just to clarify – a client cannot “purchase” your music. They can pay a fee to “license” your music. Otherwise you’d better be charging thousands per track, cause you’ll lose ownership by “selling” it to a client.
Library music matters. It’s as important as hit songs – without it, no one would watch the crap they put on TV.
Watermarking. NO ONE can deny a watermark. Fingerprinting ala TuneSat is so 1990’s – and it gives your PRO the “wiggle room” they need to move your money where they want to.
Fair pay for library tracks – quit transferring money OUT of the TV payments for “hit song” super payments. Keep the payments where they should be. Enough with the creative accounting.
Better and fair pay for TV streaming – where is that money going? It’s out there. Why are we not seeing it – or more correctly, why are we seeing tenths of a cent instead of the pennies we deserve. I’m pretty sure I know where it’s headed, but without transparency, who can know for sure. I think most PRO employees actually believe their accounting methods. Hahahahahaaaaaaa!
Fair and transparent accounting with your PRO, and putting their bosses (yeah, thats us they work for US!) before industry parties, seminars and SXSW shindigs.
Keep hammering your PRO. Change comes slowly.
Daniel – sorry, I know this is frustrating for you. If I got all worked up every time they missed a performance I’d have been dead of a heart attack or institutionalized long ago. Roll with it, try to effect change without becoming TOO attached.
P.S. Don’t ever give up control of your music. <<snip>> Does everyone realize this?
LOL Evidently not Music1234. If they did, the Exclusive “high end” libraries would not be getting any music. Or they would have to change their contracts.
Yeah absolutely. Anything and everything. I LOVE writing orchestral music, and keep buying libraries for doing it, but have not really done anything solidly orchestrally based for years.
I know some have gotten replies via email, but I’ve never been successful with it – and I was even told the exact person to contact. Nothing. I just occasionally wanted a simple drum or bass loop or a brass hit or something simple to use in a densely layered composition – I’m not trying to buy a construction kit and remix and release it. Dumb. They are having deep discounted sales all over the place now. I think they finally figured it out, but for me it’s too little too late.
Like I mentioned, the very first product on their website has the same old crap in the license as they’ve always had. How long does it take to change the text on their website? A day? Two? Why the conflicting info if they are re-doing their license?
And yet……. I clicked on the FIRST collection on their website :
“This license does not allow you to include the samples, whether unmodified or as part of a derivative work, in any music library or sample library product. However, a “special use” license may be requested from Big Fish Audio, free of charge, if you wish to use this product as part of a musical work intended for use with music libraries (some conditions apply, and Big Fish Audio retains the right to refuse any request that does not meet those conditions). Any unlicensed usage will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law.”
Can’t tell you how I’ve tried to jump thru their hoops before – only to be met with unanswered phone calls and/or emails. They do make some cool stuff, but I am no longer interested and will not entertain their goods any longer. They killed their own market.