Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi all, I just went through this exercise. I created an eight song compilation of tracks in the same style all with alternate mixes and timing edits (Michael L – you heard a few of these). Then I made a spreadsheet listing PMA libraries organized by “Primary”, “Associate” and “Represented by APM”. It came out to about 100 libraries. I submitted to 17 of them and received four responses, but ultimately, no offers. The one I wanted to place with went as far as the Senior Producer presenting my project to the sales team, whose response was that they had just released a similar project, and needed that one to “breathe” for a bit.
I was just about to go the non-exclusive route with the tracks when I got an offer to place them with a library I submitted to after seeing them mentioned here. When I researched the library, I saw one of MLR’s respected composer’s was represented by them. They also have a reasonable reversion clause for these exclusive tracks, and as a bonus will also take some of my non-exclusive stuff.
This whole shopping process took five months. Expect not to hear back from about 80% of your submissions. Composing a complete project like this takes time and I felt like I had more at stake with this than when doing a simple one off piece in a few hours. I wanted to make the right decision. When going this route, I would advise taking a deal with a respectable up-front payment. In lieu of that, make sure to get a reversion clause. If you can’t get either, ask yourself if you’re really willing to part with you hard work for no up-front money and no chance to ever get back the rights.
Hope this helps,
MichaelRight, we can’t do a 100% perfect job. So my take is we have do the best that we can and be satisfied with that. In your case, that might mean not using samples that you’re questioning, like I didn’t use the sax loop. But we all need to use content and can’t question every single thing. If a situation ever did come up, I’d hope the library would recognize if a composer took all possible measures to act honestly, and then themselves act understandingly. I mean in this day of blatant music thieves stealing full tracks and passing them off as their own, why dump an honest composer because of something they had no control over?
It is tricky. A typical license agreement gives you the right to use the sounds for commercial purposes within musical compositions, then the next paragraph says the sounds are licensed “as is” without warranties of any kind! I bought a saxophone sample product just recently and heard the melody of a famous jazz standard in some of the loops.
It would be a shame for a library to drop a composer who did everything correctly. The composer shopped and paid for content, and received a license to use the sounds commercially. What more can we do?
I guess it comes down to trust. It sounds like you don’t trust that the content is actually legal, so you need to either verify with the company providing the license that yes it is a 100% legal sample or don’t use it. I don’t trust the sax product now, and maybe any other product put out by the company.
Eventually, we have to create and need content to do so. How does that saying go – “Trust but verify” or something like that.
Welcome Fredrik. It’s a big holiday weekend here in the US so many MLR users may not be around to greet you right now…
Thanks Art. That brings up a question that I hope won’t be off topic. What are people using for mix comparison sources these days? What I mean is, back in the day, I would extract examples from CD. This would give me a high quality 16 bit 44,100 sample rate wave file. But now, in the days of streaming and mp3’s, and CD’s mostly a thing of the past, what format are mix creators using for comparison? Do we trust compressed sound files lower in quality that a 16 wav to guide us?
extend the stereo field, but only if REALLY necessary. I try to avoid it like the plague, cause it messes things up, especially reverb, but sometimes a little touch is nice or necessary
Yeah, this is one of those plug-in’s that you can tell right away if is helpful or not. Pay attention to the low end. Stereo imagers can decrease your perception of the bass. Some stereo enhancing plug-ins include a bass make up. Also watch the main output level, it may increase and put you near clipping. Still, on some material it is a nice enhancement.
Hi Patrick, nice composition.
Mastering starts with the mix. If a track has a great mix, only little tweaks should be needed in mastering. If major surgery is happening to your stereo mix when mastering, then it’s time to go back and re-evaluate the mix as a whole.
I’ve tried different tools to master. I have IZotope’s Ozone, but mostly I use individual plug-ins from different companies. I’ve found Ozone to “color” the sound. Which is good, if you want to add color like “analog”, “warm”, “tube” or etc. My line up of individual plug-ins is more transparent and this is what I prefer, as I add my color in the mix.
Let’s see if I can recall my chain from memory:
EQ, with a preset to specifically remove low end rumble that isn’t doing the song any good.
2nd EQ, full spectrum, set flat to start.
Compressor, with a mastering preset ready I’ve programmed.
Audio Enhancer with starting preset I’ve programmed
Stereo Imager with starting preset I’ve programmed.
Maximizer with dither.Depending on how others mix, their chain would look different.
There’s a lot to learn about each plug-in. You have to practice just like you would to learn to play a musical instrument. But it’s not rocket science. It’s all about using your ears. Pay attention to gain staging and constantly ask yourself “is what I’m doing improving the song?” Once you do enough of this you can tell right away if enabling a plug-in is going to end up helping the song or is not necessary at all.
These days I find myself using a lot less of EQ in processing my stereo tracks. So hopefully that means I’m doing a better job in the mixing stage. Good luck!
You have worked hard. You have the knowledge. You have the skills. You are…
…ready to bake.
You have the knowledge. You have the skills. You are…
…still poor as $hit.
FWIW – my original post here from 2012 in response to
“Anyone here have any experience in placing cover songs?”
was
“You can put covers on musicsupervisor.com. I have some but never a placement…”.
I’ve since removed those tracks, but musicsupervisor.com must have given the ok to upload them at one time, or I never would have. I see at About Music Supervisor (http://www.musicsupervisor.com/about/) it reads: “Also we have great covers”.
What I’m taking away from this is that perhaps we need a new type of license to authorize a cover to be speculatively placed on the commercial licencing marketplace. But right now, no such animal exists, leaving a gray area.
Very interesting, thanks for the discussion!
Prime-time History channel from last domestic statement:
:24 = $8.59
:17 = $6.08
:32 = $11.45
:16 = $3.94Hi Michael,
All of those are good reasons for getting permission ahead of time! But, I’m not seeing a reason that states permission is legally needed ahead of time. Legally, permission is granted or not granted by the issuance of a sync license by the copyright holder, correct? It is the sync license that allows the copyright holder to control how their work gets used, isn’t it?
The obligations involved for the artist are obtaining a mechanical license and issuing a master use license. The obligation for the receiver of the master use license is to request a sync license from the copyright holder. The obligation for the copyright holder is to deny or accept the sync license request. Are these the permissions needed, and none others? Or am I not getting the proper chain through this thick skull of mine? 🙂
I understand all that, thanks. I guess what threw me was Mark’s clarification of:
“when you are doing a cover for potential licensing, you actually still have to get permission from the copyright owner”
If I’m hired by a company to create a cover for a specific licensing opportunity, then obviously permission is needed from the copyright owner in the form of a sync license which someone is going to pay for. If I’m creating a cover for potential licensing, this reads to me like there is no specific opportunity in place, but potentially this recording could be offered a master license sometime in the future, and at which time the sync license would also be pursued.
Why does one need permission (aside from a compulsory mechanical license if selling to the public) to do a cover for potential opportunities, when each specific opportunity is covered by a negotiating a sync license?
Thanks Michael! I do understand a sync license is not covered by mechanical royalties. In my post, I wrote “Remember, there are two separate licenses required, master and sync.” Mark clarified by writing “but there’s an extra layer to all this when a commercial license is involved”. I don’t understand what the extra layer is, how much it costs, and why isn’t it covered by a sync license.
Thanks for clarifying Mark. I would have thought that permission/approval to use a cover version commercially was granted solely by the copyright holder either issuing or not issuing a sync license.
So let’s see if I understand this correctly:
An artist pays for and is granted a mechanical license through Harry Fox for digital distribution of a cover tune. A year later a company asks for a master license to use the cover in a TV commercial. The artist and owner of the master recording agrees. The company then goes to the copyright holder asking for a sync license. The request is either agreed or denied.
But, if the artist is not seeking digital distribution via a mechanical license, because he or she wishes to create the cover strictly for commercial licensing, then permission must be granted from the copyright owner. But permission for what? A mechanical license is compulsory (as long as the song has been previously recorded) and the rate is statutory. So they’re not asking for a mechanical license. What exactly are they asking for and what does it cost? And, once this permission is given, does the copyright holder still have the right to deny any given sync license?
I guess I don’t understand it correctly. 🙂