Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I re-read the post on the JP blog. Here’s the bottom-line:
“We are creating two libraries to best serve the marketplace. Both will be accessible to our clients through our popular Jingle Punks Player technology.”
“The new Exclusive Library will stand alongside Jingle Punks’ existing standard library.”
As alluded to above, by Kiwi, there are those who care about re-titling and those who don’t. JP is doing the smart thing and covering both ends of the market.
Things may actually be pretty much status quo for writers in JP’s “existing standard library,” except that some customers will undoubtedly shift to the exclusive library. That may mean fewer placements for writers in the “standard” library, who were getting placements with JP customers who make the move. If all of your placements were coming from the customers who aren’t concerned about re-titling, you may not notice any difference.
Eh…..never mind.
Random lawyer thoughts:
The biggest issue for writers, if Advice is correct (and I believe the he/she is) is, what happens to tracks that are already in multiple non-exclusive libraries that do blanket deals? (Edit: btw don’t forget to add Pump to that list.)
If the networks don’t want to pay for the same tracks twice (they don’t), at some point the slate is going to have to be wiped clean. Whether or not writers will be able to remove their re-titled tracks from libraries and convert them to exclusive tracks with one or more libraries is the crux the matter.
The worst possible scenario is that these tracks will be considered “damaged goods.” Remember that the re-titled tracks are not assets, they have no actual value to the library. The easiest course of action for a library would be to simply let the re-titled tracks “die on the vine.” The most difficult approach will be to convert non-exclusive tracks to exclusive, because it would involve verifying that each track is no longer available in any other library. Time is money, and if the library already has an exclusive catalog, there is little incentive to choose the latter option.
There is a parallel trend that I’ve noticed, among the libraries moving toward exclusive content. They are establishing a core group of de facto “in house” writers. There’s still no up-front money, but one writer that I know justifies it because the placements and odds of placement are better.
In short, we may be witnessing the end of the free-for-all flood. Ultimately, it’s the consumer that’s in the driver’s seat, and they’ve had enough.
“Doug R. (library producer from the evil empire)”
😆
Hi Doug!
” I had thier A&R tell me my songs are not quite professional…”
Did they explain what they meant, like “you need better samples” or “you need to master your tracks?”
A blanket statement, without details, is not constructive criticism that will help you improve in any way. I thought that part of their sales pitch was that writers get valuable “feedback” from experienced pros.
Thanks guys. I’m by no means a guru. I’m trying to figure out this new library landscape, as you all are.
But….many of the re-titling libraries started out touting themselves as “anti-library” libraries. In other words…”we don’t do production music”…”we represent artists”..etc etc. That works if your focus is on licensing indie bands and you’re an indie band. But, if you are a composer who composes cues for a living, it’s meaningless. In that scenario, you just give them what you do, whether its hip hop, or indie rock, etc., and they decide how it could or should be used.
I’ve scored a lot of documentary, educational and corporate productions, and with minimal criteria, it was always my job as the composer to know, or figure out what music was appropriate. Of course, much of that has changed since scoring has been replaced in large part by song based sound tracks. So, what was sports music, or corporate music, or news music may not be what it used to be. As producers and programmers grapple for the attention, of a younger audience with an increasingly short attention span what constitutes potential “uses” for musical genres has changed. So….your guess is as good as mine. Often, libraries want a blend of old and new. For example, I think that I read somewhere, maybe on JP’s site, that they wanted Dubstep, but with traditional instruments added.
@wilx2. You’re tracks are very good, very “advertising” oriented, especially the whimsical stuff. With respect to libraries like JP, Crucial, and Scorekeepers, my approach (and this is just my opinion), I would try to determine what their strengths are. Do they place a lot of ads? Are they mostly MTV? How about Discovery Channel etc. If you find out that one is stronger than the others in a given area divide your tracks accordingly. Your dubstep cue might go to the library with a lot of MTV placements. Your “seashell” cue to one that places a lot of ads, and so on.As far as re-titling goes, US copyright law allows you to provide alternate titles for your works. You could, in theory, put all your tracks into RF libraries with one set of titles, and then into libraries like JP with another set of titles. But…instead of putting all of your tracks into into every re-title library give each one some, based upon their strengths, as discussed above. That would eliminate the issue of music supes getting the same tracks on hard drives from multiple sources. ….a strategy that I’m mulling.
Or…as Gael used to say, “just change the track a little…how hard is that?”
Sorry for the ramble. It’s been a long day of legal seminars.
@wilx2 JP and AS are vastly different libraries. They have different business models, and a mostly different client base. JP pitches music, or at the very least provides music to producers on hard-drives. AS, in it’s own words, is a “marketplace” where you sell your music. Unlike JP, it does not send music out, rather clients come to its site and search.
JP is all about broadcast, because that’s where publishing money comes from. AS, on the other hand is a royalty free library that derives its money mostly from sales. As with most RF libraries, it is very likely that their client base is generally non-broadcast users (there are always exceptions).
Depending upon what,and how, you write AS may not be the right fit. Before you sign away a lot of tracks exclusively, what kind of music do you write and where do you want it placed? If you’re hoping to get a lot of music onto big network television shows, you are likely to be disappointed and then blame AS. If you write in a genre that doesn’t sell well on AS (you can find out in their knowledge base), you’re likely to be disappointed.
The library business is not monolithic entity in which every library serves the same purpose, has the same goals, or has the same clients. Yet, many writers blindly pump music into the system without even thinking about where or how it might work.
When I get an assignment from a library, 9 times out of 10 its not “give us a rock track, or a hip hop track. etc” It’s give us a sports track, a news track, a nostalgic track. The description I get is the purpose for which the music will be used, not the musical style.
So…that’s a long-winded way of saying you have to match the purpose of your music to the libraries whose clients have the most need for your music.
@ Art…you write great broadcast friendly music, which explains your success with JP! If I listened to your catalog, I bet there would be very few cues in the corporate “wallpaper” niche, which a client of mine called “forward motion” music. I think that your success with JP is a great example of finding the right library for your tracks.
Note: RF is the model that I’m focused on (other than upfront exclusive) because I have a large catalog of mostly non-broadcast music that comes from corporate, educational and documentary work. With respect to the exclusives, I get assignments.
” I did contact several people at the production company, but never heard back from anyone so I have no idea where they got it from!”
Ah… ye old catch 22. This is just one of the reasons some producers and libraries are moving away from re-titled music. To quote one library owner…”our clients got tired of composers calling them up, to ask them which library they got their music from.”
The answer to that question varies. It depends on the business model. You could be an individual setting up your own online RF library, for which you are THE composer (modest expense for web design and hosting).
Or, you might be a group of people who pay nothing for music, re-title it, and try to get placements. (somewhat more expense for office space, phones, web, maybe staff)
Or .. you can operate like a traditional library and actually pay composers for their work, hire live musicians to perform and record the composers’ music, rent office space, hire a sales staff etc etc. (the music budget alone….ah fugeddaboudit)
Of course there is every variation in between. At any level it isn’t cheap to do it well.
Hi wilx2,
I don’t know if you’re in the US, but let’s assume that you are.
Under US copyright law, the ONLY WAY to transfer ownership of your copyright is in writing, even if money changes hands. When money changes hands without a clear intent in writing that the work was: 1) a work for hire, or 2) that the creator is transferring the copyright, it creates an implied non-exclusive license. The person who gave you the money can use the music, but they do not own it. Your lawyer was correct. You still own it.
If, you’re going to do this more often, have your lawyer draw up a simple agreement, stating the you are creating a demo, and that no rights are being transferred. Either way, always try to get a writing.
Cheers,
Michael
” What’s melody and harmony. Never heard of those terms Michael.”
Stay away from the 5 note chords, and you’ll be safe. 😉
” For instance… the first short cue I made was taken from a soft volume level of the full track. ”
Soft volume level?????!!!!
Geez..John…dynamics ar so last millennium! Next thing you’ll be telling us that you use melody and harmony too!!!!! 😆
This is a great discussion. I think that an important concept is developing. I’ve known all along that the non-exclusive (re-title) market is very different from the RF market, with respect to musical preferences. AudioSparx likes to tout their TV placements, but I would wager that the majority of their, and other RF libraries’, sales are non-broadcast. What kinds of uses are non-broadcast, and how does that music differ from broadcast? There is a difference.
Imagine a typical reality show. There’s lots of activity, maybe a party atmosphere. My experience with the editors of these shows is that they just want to keep it moving, keep the energy up. In the non-broadcast world, music often accompanies narration and technical matter. It is sometimes less about entertainment, and more about information. The music that works in each scenarios is very different.
Kiwi hit the nail on the head:
“the folks that hire me for shows they will get anxious and ask me to tone it down and focus. The extra minute and added “artistry” is a useless distraction to them.”
and
“All I’m trying to say is that it seems obvious to me that the music and writing style itself has as much more to do with success as the library model.”
YES!!!! I spent 25+ years writing for, and working with, non-broadcast corporate, business and educational clients. That is one of the primary reasons that I’m not chasing libraries focused on TV placements. I’ve got 1000 + cues aimed at people doing historical documentaries, nature films, science, corporate image, etc, none of which is MTV ready.
I do “TV writing” for my TV shows. But…I’ve got a 1000+ cue catalog of non-broadcast cues that I’m not going to ignore. Two different worlds and two different revenue streams, which I think explains varied experiences between non-exclsuive and RF libraries.
This business is definitely not one-size-fits-all.
Oh sorry, Kiwi, I think that you misunderstood what I meant about dabbling. What I meant was that if you want to earn a living from it, except in rare circumstances, you have to do more than dabble. Because that’s not your concern, no worries.
Michael Nicholas said: “Hi Michael, I can confirm what you wrote. The average gratis-license royalty as reported on my July ASCAP statement was $1.95 for each placement. I can earn $20.00 for a royalty free sale, or ten times that! $1.95 just ain’t worth it! I’m so glad my custom composing/song writing work (non-library) has picked up!”
Kiwi said: “Amen to this! I definitely see this phenomenon each quarter. In my case, it seems to happen just as often with tracks from exclusives as non-exclusives. Actually, this whole conversation has me thinking of checking into placing more music into RF situations.”
I don’t know who created the myth the this business is a path to riches. For 99 and 44/100 % of writers it takes a lot of tracks to make a living. We’ve said it over and over again…1000+ tracks. There are exceptions. But, DO THE MATH. Will 1000 placements on MTV at $1.95 each earn you a living? at $20?…at $50?
Most writers will never come close to writing 1000 cues in a lifetime, let alone 1000 placements. Like Mark Petrie said early on (as Matt) 12 hours per day, six days per week for X number of years, writing whether you want to or not, and he started with an existing catalog. My point is. This is not a business that you can dabble in.