Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
“Out of curiosity, how do you think composers can stop being “our own worst enemy”? On the one hand, you advise not turning one’s back on any income stream but you also seem to be saying that we are causing ourselves problems by participating in some of them. What’s your approach? Is this just the way it is or is there a solution?”
You won’t like my answer. I should have qualified my answer. Retitling is one income stream that I have chosen to avoid, because I want to stay clear of the “mess.”
I’ve been in the library business for 30+ years. What I do is built upon relationships that I’ve established during that time.
I do not, now, and most likely will not, get into the retitling game. I see it as a short term gain and a long term problem.
My approach:
1) I have my own library that currently supplies music to five television shows (the result of 30 years in the business and networking)
2) I also write for exclusive libraries
3) I plan to put the rest of my catalog into RF libraries because:
a) I write in a lot of styles, many of which appeal to corporate clients and documentary film producers etc.
b) I do not write a lot of “MTV” style indie pop/rock cues
c) The backend for a 20 second cue on a show like Jersey Shore , or the Kardashians is often less than you would make selling the track on a RF site. Why throw your tracks into the gratis-license pool for $10?
d) You get to keep your publishing (it’s clean)
e) I have enough tracks to make it viable
4) If I was to put tracks into a non-exclusive retitling library, like Scorekeepers, it would be on an exclusive basis because I know that they market those tracks differently, to higher end clients, who don’t want retitled tracks.
5) When I get to the point of marketing (or selling) my library, I will be able to tell supes and producers that they aren’t going to be bombarded with these tracks from 20 different libraries.
This is what works for me. Your results/experience may vary. I am not convinced that having tracks in 10 different retitling libraries actually generates more income for composers. Logically, if your music is being pitched to the same shows by 10 different libraries it’s not really increasing your odds of placement, because it’s not creating new opportunities.
I’m talking strictly about instrumental music. I apply none of this to songs with lyrics. Licensing your “songs” if you are a singer/songwriter.performer is a whole different ball of wax.
I’ve said before this is a many tiered business. I focus on my niche.
” It’s already a mess out there with hundreds and hundreds of non-exclusives pitching the same TV shows.”
Just imagine being on the RECEIVING end of that mess. Think it gives the producers a warm and fuzzy feeling about composers? We are our own worst enemy.
@blind. I agree with you.
But…this is a many tiered business. It cannot be made up of just elite libraries with high end catalogs.
To carry through the food analogy, there are five star restaurants and then there’s fast food. They serve two different clientele. The low end is merely about volume. That’s just business. McDonald’s is about selling billions of burgers.
So, yes there are libraries that are very particular about who and what gets into their catalogs (and they pay for it). And then, there are the libraries that merely warehouse tracks. They are the musical equivalent of supermarkets. They are not going to listen to individual tracks, anymore than the president of Giant Supermarkets is going to taste every brand of soup it sells. They are merely a sales platform for commercially viable product. Someone on this forum once said that no matter how crappy your music is someone will buy it. At that level it is just a commodity.
Two very different worlds.
Edit: my personal feeling is that most composers need to think like corporations and create product for all levels of the market.
I’m going to play devil’s advocate here. The fact is that nearly everyone with a computer and a copy of Garage Band is submitting cues to libraries. NO ONE has time to listen to it all.
Often, I’m in the editing suite when editors are choosing music for a show. THEY make decisions within 10 or 15 seconds. When I’m given tracks, I might listen to half a cue, tops. I can tell right away if it is or isn’t going to work. The first thing that I’m listening for is the sonic quality. Next is whether or not it “grabs” me.
No one is going to listen to an entire track to find out if you know the difference between a Neapolitan 6th and a Neapolitan pizza, or if the bridge is where the cue suddenly gets interesting.
The kind of library that you’re talking about just wants cues that meet a minimum level of sonic quality.
Prime candidate for lesser material under a pseudonym!
@Kiwi
You may be over-thinking a bit too much. The exclusives that I’ve dealt with haven’t said we don’t want your music because you’re in royalty free libraries too. They serve two different markets. What some exclusives DO NOT like is writers who participate in the retitling model (because they are in direct competition).
I think that choosing to put music into a high end or low end situation is a business decision, and most sophisticated publishers will recognize that. People worry too much that putting music into RF libraries will some how tarnish their “brand,” like they’re the next John Williams. My advice is to take a deep breath, do a reality check, and then don’t pass up on viable revenue streams.
Howard Shore started out playing sax in the Canadian pop-rock band Lighthouse. When it came time to score Lord of the Rings, no-one said “sorry Howard, you tarnished your brand in the pop band.”
There are some very good writers, who do high end work, who have material in royalty free libraries, Mark Petrie and Jason Livesey, among them. If you are really concerned, use a pseudonym. But, in the end, it’s just business.
Yes, I would guess that the presence of dialogue will classify any cue as BG from now on.
>I agree that it would be nice if BI went up rather than staying the same. Why would someone like the FMN guy campaign for the change if the BI wasn’t going to go up? I don’t quite get his motivation otherwise…<
I can’t speak for him. But I believe that he did not see any rationale for ASCAP to pay more for vocal music. Perhaps, he thought that BI would rise.
I think that the key phrase is here:
“…all Background Performances will now be treated the same, with no difference in payment between Background Vocal and Background Instrumental performances…The length of feature performances – those performances that are considered the center of audience attention – will have a greater effect on their value.
Before, vocal music was paid at a feature rate no matter how it was used, simply because it contains vocals. Now, all music, vocal or instrumental, must meet the above criteria and be the “center” of attention to qualify as a feature performance. This change is a result of the ubiquitous use of songs as background music, in the same manner which instrumental music was previously used.
There was a long campaign by instrumental composers for the change. Mark Northam, of the Film Music Network was a strong advocate for instrumental composers on this issue.
With respect to euca’s cue, it is quite possible that it was reclassified as a background performance, under the new standard.
@euca…was your song the “center of audience attention?”Hi Cari,
As you probably know, I am a lawyer and a composer (not in that order). Without getting into a complicated explanation about the differences between, lawyers, agents and managers, I would ask the same questions as Ulla. If you came to me, my first question would be, “what do you want to accomplish?” The answer to this question would let me know if you have realistic expectations about the business. A lot of the anger and frustration that composers vent here comes from not having realistic expectations in the first place.
>My husband seems to think I’m spinning my wheels going through music libraries, although I am optimistic (most days)<
“Going through music libraries”….to get where? Earning a living? Selling CD’s? Selling downloads (e.g. itunes, CDbaby)? Custom scoring..films, video games????
> Also, since I do best at writing from my heart, I primarily focus on one type of music and no plans to perform live.<
Writing one type of music, unfortunately is (possibly, not always) a problem in the library business, but not necessarily for the licensing business. To succeed as a library composer you really need to be able to create what Mark Lewis calls a “large volume of work.” My opinion, and that of some others here, is that you really need a catalog of 1000 or more cues in order to make a living wage composing library music. In my opinion, and based upon the success of others, e.g. Mark Petrie, John Mazzei, etc, you should write in a number of different styles.
To that, I would add that a library writer should write keeping in mind what is usable. Listen to the music in a variety of TV shows and ads, e.g. drama, reality, news, etc. Background music on CSI is different than Desparate Housewives, is different than Jersey Shore, is different than an ad for Pampers. Listen to the music in radio ads. Focus on what gets used, and think about why.
Licensing can be a different animal. A one-style writer can have success via a licensing if their style is popular or trendy, and meets the needs of end users…at the moment. Moby would be an example of a one-style writer, who achieved great success through licensing. Unfortunately, styles come and go so, you need to make hay while the sun shines. He did.
I’ve listened to your music. It’s very lovely. But…it is very esoteric. It would most likely be labeled “new age.” The “good” news, is that unlike crowded genres, such as hip-hop and dubstep, your competition is limited in comparison. The “bad” news is that the sync market for that style is also comparatively small, as it’s heyday was in the early to mid 1990’s. Hiring a lawyer, agent or manager will not change that reality.
Thus, depending on what your goals are, you are not necessarily “spinning your wheels.” You may be achieving what can be done with your style, at this point in time (things change). Think of how that style gets used. I recently heard an ad for an “all-natuaral” sunscreen product that has, what I’ll call, a “new age-like” underscore. But, it’s more “new age-like” than new age (which raises a whole different discussion regarding the differences between writing in a genre and writing in a “style” for media. There is a distinction).
I would give you a more specific opinion, but I cannot do that without knowing what your goals are. If you just want to write from the heart, and sell your music to people who will listen to it, you may want to consider going the CDbaby, itunes etc, digital artist route. However, you have to be prepared to promote yourself to achieve any success,in any arena. You may spend more than you make.
If you want to be a library composer my advice, for what it’s worth, would be:
1) Buy the best equipment and sounds that you can afford (if not using live players)
2) Write in more than one style (but know your limitations)
3) Write every day, whether you want to or not. (Inspiration is for amateurs)
4) Be prolific. Unless lightning strikes (e.g. Mind Heist), you need 1000 to 1500 cues to make what many people would consider a living. Everyone’s needs vary.
5) Have an attorney to review contracts for you. It’s easy to get burned!
6) Work hard to raise your game, and learn from everything you do (including mistakes).
Some general thoughts (not judgements).
Library music is the domain 0f professional composers, who write on a daily basis and produce a large volume of consistently usable work.
Licensing , as distinguished from library music, is more “artist” focused. As such, the opportunities may rise and fall with the artist’s popularity…potentially a strike while the iron is hot situation.
Donald Passman’s book, All You Need to Know About the Music Business, is good, but may be more geared to performing and recording artists.
Music Money and Success, by Jeff and Todd Brabec (both entertainment attorneys) is also very good.
I hope that gives you some food for thought.
All the best,
Michael
@Bigg Rome. It’s a big blue ocean, with a lot of room for everyone.
Winning in a competitive sport is achieved by upping your game, not by preventing the competition from playing.
rawrthas:
Anyone ever have a work shown as Registed in the Work Registration section, but it not show up in your catalog? They’re not showing up when I search for them either. Hopefully I’m worrying over nothing and it takes another day for the Work and Work # to show up in my catalog.There is a time lag between when you register and when it shows up in your catalog. BMI will send you an email when the track is successfully registered.
Scott Ross:
On a slightly different topic, but royalties none the less.I have one of my songs on The Walking Dead DVD (Behind the scenes/making of) from season 1 that I heard recently, but have not gotten anything for it.The song played for 45 seconds. I was hoping to see something on my latest BMI statement. I contacted BMI, and they said they don’t collect royalties for music from DVDs!! I thought that very strange.Is that really true? Also, how can I go about getting something for it.I am on royalty free sites too, but that song hasn’t been purchased before, at least to my knowledge.True. The PROs collect money for broadcast performances, not from DVDs.
You may be looking for some kind of mechanical. You could try Harry Fox Agency.
How did your music get onto the DVD? You need to start there.Pat. SD2 is very old. Look into Drums of War from Cinesamples or Epic Taikos from 8dio.
Symphobia is very deep, very powerful, but you could have saved money by going with Project SAM’s Orchestral Essentials. Probably more than enough for what you’ll do.
As far as making your own footprint goes, you’re stocking up on sounds for which there is a well worn path. You’re going to need to use them in a unique way.