[MichaelL]

Hi Mr.Composer

Thanks for the kind words.

There’s an easy answer to that riddle. I didn’t /don’t do it all at the same time. I composed documentary scores and library music for about 25 years. Then, I went to law school and practiced law, which took a chunk of ten years. Then, I left law and went back to composing a few years ago.

If you add all that up, you’ll realize that I’m no kid. If you’re around long enough, you’re bound to learn a thing or two, or to at least sound like you did. 😉

I’m no Daryl Griffith, Donn Wilkerson or Mark Petrie. And…I’m more or less starting over. I think my website (a work in progress) would be anti-climactic at this point. There’s probably a good story in all of this.
Maybe I’ll do one of Art’s interviews…down the road.

Back to renovating and selling my house, which is that start of the next chapter. 🙂

Cheers,
Michael

[MichaelL]

Mark, thank you for your generous advice. As always, you’re a gentleman, and a pro.

Cheers,
MichaelL

[MichaelL]

@the Dude…(apologies to Jeff Bridges)

I’ve been writing for exclusive AND RF libraries for 35 years. I think my point was that they are both viable revenue streams. And, if you read my follow-up, comparing the two is really apples and oranges.

I actually don’t believe in “ranking” one above, or below, that other, because they serve different functions in the food chain. My argument, if any, is against the knee jerk tendency to argue for or against one or the other….more or less what you said, when you quoted yourself. 😉

Cheers,
Michael

[MichaelL]

@mrcomposer…agreed, as I mentioned in another thread, Daryl Griffith is a really great composer, and skilled violinist. (for all I know you could be Daryl). His “Life on Earth” score is wonderful. We’ve PM’d a few times on another forum. But, I will tell you that he is no stranger to virtual instruments.

Moreover, that music is very specific in it’s nature and potential uses. It would be totally out of place on something like Keeping Up With the Kardashians, or any other typical American cable show. So, I guess perhaps that music, like water, seeks its own level.

The point being that the majority of composers here seem to be vying for placments on cable /reality shows, like the Kardashians, through gratis blanket license deals, rather than aiming for UK documentaries. So, I think these apples and oranges arguments tend to lead nowhere.

There is a place in this world for great composers like Daryl and there is a place for the writers who don’t know a Neopolitan 6th from a Neopolitan Pizza. Their worlds do not collide.

_Michael

[MichaelL]

It’s interesting that the aricle itself never get’s into a discussion about live instruments vs. midi, but some composers always want to make that leap.

The anti-virtual instrument argument is dead horse. The ability to create a convincing string sound with virtual instruments comes down to the skill of the composer, and his or her ability to write properly for strings. The same can be said of any instrument. If a string or a horn is nothing more to a writer than a particular sound, then they do not understand that instrument, and they will produce crap.

When you study composition, arranging or orchestration, you are taught how each instrument functions, and how it is used. Access to all of these sounds without sufficient knowledge or skill has no doubt contributed to flood of bad music. (BTW…poorly written music played on live instruments is still poorly written music.)

You really cannot fault virtual instruments. For example, the quality of string samples available today is incredible. Anyone who thinks these sound like general midi, is surely deaf. http://www.spitfireaudio.com/bml-sable-vol-1

The second subject that some composers like to harp on is “royalty free” music. Here’s what the article actually said about RF music, apart from the implied value judgment (“lower end” etc).

“Obviously there is a market for lower end, royalty-free and buy-out material. What’s encouraging here for us though, is the clear indication that users are becoming much more aware, savvy, and discriminating when searching for music to complement and colour their productions.”

Some composers can’t help but get their knickers in a knot over RF music.

I can tell you that you won’t find any RF music used on decent ads or higher paying channels over here.

I suppose that if my goal in life was to place music only in “decent ads,” or on “higher paying channels in the UK,” I’d care. However, I consider all revenue streams viable. (For what it’s worth, I’ve been making money every Christmas from ads in the UK, which use music that I did with ALL midi instruments about 15 years ago, for a US based exclusive library.)

I’m not sure that “quality,” as the article means it is limited to only high end libraries, or to live instruments. I think the crux of the issue is here:

“Quality is increasingly paramount when it comes to production music. Even when you’re looking for something fairly ‘generic’, it’s still vital that it has that original edge.”

Originality is the vital component from the author’s perspective.
Being original, and producing the highest quality product that you can, with either live OR virtual instruments (or both) is what will separate you from the herd, in an exclusive OR royalty free library.

_Michael

[MichaelL]

Some quick legal thoughts:

As the creator of your works, you own the copyright and control the whole bundle of rights thats goes along with that. When you sign an “exclusive” deal with formerly non-exclusive libraries, if you are not transferring the copyright (you shouldn’t) you still own and control your music. At best, your are granting the library a perpetual exclusive license to represent the music in question.

There has been some talk of reversion clauses, which sounds like an automatic threshold / time arrangement. What I’d prefer to see is a revocation clause, which allows either party to say, this isn’t working out, and the agrement is terminated in 6 months / 2 Quarters (like the PROs). In fact, unless there is some clause in the contract that specifically makes the license irrevocable, there really should be nothing to prevent a composer from revoking, upon giving adequate notice. Remember you still own your music.

As far as the legalities of “non-exclusive” go, there’s nothing sinister about the owner of intellectual property granting multiple non-exclusive licenses in that property. It’s a fairly common practice for many forms of intellectual property. Multiple exclusive licenses would be a problem, as would multiple copyright registrations. But…it’s worth noting that the copyright office allows you to register multiple titles for the same works, and the PRO’s allow you to register alternate titles, as well.

So…at this moment I tend to agree that the exclusive v. non-exclusive controversy appears to be for the convenience of some clients.
AND…when /if the PROs implement digital recognition, the one thing they will know for sure with respect to non-exclusive music is who the composer/copyright owner is. Conceivably, in the event of a controversy regarding publishing rights, the default position of the PROS might be to award the publisher’s share to the writer, the one verifiable rights holder. That possibility, perhaps more than any other, may be at the root of the shift toward exclusive. I mean imagine doing all that work and not getting paid for it…oh wait, maybe you can. 😉

_Michael

[MichaelL]

you have a wealth of experience and knowledge. Hopefully I will attain your level of success one day. Until then….

Thanks DI.

This reply is not directed at any one individual. So, no flaming trolls please… I’ll only say this because it’s relevant to the subject of exclusive v. non-exclusive, and not to put forth an argument for or against.

I reached the point where an editor will call me for a cue from my library because of relationships and friendships that developed through working with exclusive libraries, for years. To be sure, the situation is different from the current argument because those exclusive libraries paid for every cue.

But, in a traditional exclusive situation, there are a lot of intangible benefits, that may not be known for years, one of which is “open doors.” In more than one instance, if I had gone into it with a major attitude, demanded a lot of upfront money, and non-exclusivity I would have lost incredible opportunities, for what, so that I could still offer those cues to someone else? That would have been a huge mistake.

Whether or not those intangible benefits exist in the new “no money upfront” exclusive model, I can’t say. Does the risk outweigh the possible benefit?

This is a business, and business involves risk. Do what works for you, and what you’re comfortable with. Some roads are dead ends. Some opportunities don’t pan out. And sometimes the rewards for taking a risk are greater than you can imagine.

Develop relaionships. Be a professional, not a prima donna. You won’t regret it.

Best wishes for your future success DI.

_Michael

[MichaelL]

Only if there is time to write something new…

Unless you’re talking about an immediate, within a few minutes, deadline I don’t see a problem. Back in the dark ages, I regularly got jobs in the morning, produced the cue and shipped it out on Fedex, later the same day. Being able to write/produce two minutes per day is a reasonable pace for film/TV composing.
@ DI, it’s not necessarily like “winning the lotto.” I regularly get calls from editors, asking if I have a specific kind of cue in MY library. If I have it, I send it off via yousendit in minutes. If I don’t have it, there’s usually few days lead time, so there’s plenty of time to write what they want. The cue then goes into one of my libraries.

_Michael

[MichaelL]

@music pro…don’t know if it’s “too little,” but what stands out is that it averages $8.53 per placement.

[MichaelL]

The melody is 18th century French, later used by Mozart and countless others. Are you concerned about the lyrics, or just the melody?

[MichaelL]

@More advice…I’m looking forward to being very happy. 🙂

Michael

[MichaelL]

As Mark says, if you’re in his library you play by the rules. And, I agree that I probably wouldn’t report every RF sale to your PRO.

But, I think more to the point is that if you’re using tunesat, or something like it, you SHOULD NOT go tracking the producer down and asking for a cue sheet. Then, not only are you possibly annoying the library’s client, you are violating its rules as well.

I guess things will get muddy in the future, and you may have to report RF sales as direct licenses if, and when, the PROs switch to digital detection.

MichaelL

[MichaelL]

Thanks for the info Mark. I agree. I don’t think reporting RF sales to BMI is a great idea.

As far as the corporate license goes, that’s news to me, obviously. However, it doesn’t surprise me. A friend of mine is an undertaker, and he has to pay ASCAP and BMI an annual license fee for the music he plays in his funeral home! It makes one wonder how the PROS actually go about
paying the composers in those situations. Twenty years ago I heard some of my music being played in restaurants, and I never got a penny for it from ASCAP.

Thanks again.

Michael

[MichaelL]

I think it would be dangerous to assume that PRO royalties will always increase over time. A lot of music has a “shelf-life,” especially if your music is trend based, rather than covering many genres. Then, there are cues that an ad agency friend of mine calls “evergreen.” They make money for years.

Art has a lot of depth in his catalog, which is a good long term strategy.

_MichaelL

[MichaelL]

As I’m sure you know, in many cases, perhaps most, RF sales are for non-broadcast productions. As such, there are no backend royalties involved.
I’ve worked for many corporate clients, over the years, and every single one was concerned about royalties, and having to pay more money in the future. PRO’s DO NOT collect money for corporate videos.

That does not mean that you can use any piece of music in a corporate video without worries. Taking a popular song, for example, and using it without paying a license fee, is a completely different ball of wax.
The issue is the license fee. When you buy a piece of royalty free music for are paying a perpetual license fee.

The second most misunderstood concept is that even if the RF cue is being used in a broadcast show, it is the network, not the producer (purchaser of the RF cue), that pays the backend.

Next, when some libraries promise “truly royalty free” music what they are essentially doing is telling broadcast producers, “we’ve eliminated the hassle of needing to fill out cue sheets, because our composers have agreed to direct license.” If and when the PRO’s go to electronic detection, and producers no longer have to deal with the hassle of filling out cue sheets, that may change the paradigm, leaving only those, like Scripps, who don’t want (should I say refuse?)to pay royalties.

I think reporting every RF sale to your PRO, as a potential direct license, would be highly inefficient. Have you been given notice by a library that it made a sale to a network, on a direct license basis? Mark Petrie stated long ago, that in his experience, the higher up you go in the food chain, producers will file cue sheets for RF tracks.
I think the one-time perpetual sync fee vs. royalty waiver concept is a strong arguement.

I’m sure Mark Lewis can add clarify things from his perspective.

_Michael

[Author]

Posts