Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
As a music library owner myself I do not think it appropriate to directly comment on the business model of another music library. Kind of bad form I think.
Best to leave it to the composers to comment on a specific music library.I disagree. In this saturated and changing library industry I think fair communication and discussion on the perceived and chargeable value of music from a composers point of view is extremely important. I’m primarily a composer and struggle to see how I could earn any money from a library with such low subscription. As I previously said, i’m not against blanket licence deals, subscription models and new library distribution platforms. I’m also ready to accept new disruptive technologies. I guessing the company in question will be successful short term but will have a high turnover of artists writing for them.
hi muchasmusic. nevermind.
I haven’t read the full terms and conditions of artlist.io but i’d love to hear your opinion of this model at $199 a year.
As an exclusive library owner I have no problems with blanket licences (which are not far from a subscription model in reality). What I don’t like to see is the perceived value of music drastically falling with libraries like this charging $200 per YEAR!. It’s no help to the industry and especially it’s composers. A number of clients/end users will flock to the cheaper models but will probably hear music they’ve chosen appear in plenty of other places. I’ve sat down and thrown a few numbers about but every time the composer looses out. The only winners here are the company in question.
Or you could use a back end service like http://www.cadenzabox.com
No problem at all Ashley. Please do contact me ‘gracias @ muchasmusic . com’ I’l love to hear what you’re up too.
Matt
Good Afternoon from the UK. I run MuchasMusic, a new exclusive library in the UK. We’re currently in discussion with a few publishers outside of the UK. We’re administered by the MCPS who collect on our behalf worldwide. If we sign a sub-publishing deal with a publisher, for instance in the States (depending on the deal of course) we’re allowing that company to administer our music in the agreed region using their software (or hardware) distribution platform. US clients could come direct to the UK and licence through us but that’s not why we signed a subpub. The publisher we sign with would handle search and distribution, marketing and any usage fees and admin on behalf of Muchas Music and it’s composers and pass on the money after taking their slice of the ever de-valuing pie.
It’s same the other way round. We would take music from a publisher outside of our territory, place within our library and market and licence through our own distribution platform. As we use the MCPS rate card then the fee’s for usage might differ from that of the rate card used in the states but that’s what the other party would be signing up too.
There are a few ways to arrange the deal itself but that’s another matter. Joining particular PRO’s may well help speed up payment depending where you are and the deals in place.
Matt
Hi Mojorising,
I’m not entirely sure what you’re trying to achieve? You’re trying to earn 20% of everything? You’re trying to find them a publishing deal whilst acting as a publisher/manager yourself yourself? I run an exclusive production music library and a sync library for signed acts and work directly with artists or other publishers. If I signed up one of your bands I wouldn’t really consider a sub-publishing deal like this as it would be unfair on the band. It seem’s you just want to take a % of earnings from the band which makes the writers/publishers split irrelevant. If you sign a contract for 20% all earnings (gross or net) that would be the deal full stop. I don’t consider this a fair deal personally unless the band were rewarded handsomely or if you could absolutely guarantee earnings for the band in question.
What you you consider your role as in this case?
Matt