[Music1234]

Europe has been undercutting the USA for decades because they never had a contract where “performers” (Musicians) were paid residuals for re-use. In London, if you were booked to play on a film score, TV spot score, or TV show/ documentary score, you received your session payment for the work you did that day and that was that.

AFM contracts still were going strong for TV spot scores up until around 2008. Then the great recession came along and that pretty much so killed that business model.
2008 also marked the year of the great expansion to on line music libraries. Scoring spots was replaced with on line data bases of production music. The AFM never had a plan to develop a contract for music licensing, but simultaneously, TV Networks, Production companies, ad agencies etc, found a massive cost savings opportunity with cheap and easily accessible on line library music.

Traditional Scoring with a live orchestra under an AFM contract is pretty much so a dead craft with few, very rare exceptions. That has been replaced by all of us, sitting in our small, often from home studios creating music on computers with sophisticated software and sound libraries, and a microphone near by to capture a few overdubs.

The AFM union does not even know how to communicate with USA production music composers let alone develop an offering to all of that would protect us long term. Frankly, because we now all sell to the world as individual merchants, I am not sure any kind of contract can be developed.

I would gladly voluntarily report my royalties and sync fee income and pay union “work dues” if that lead to a pension at the age of 67 or so. Again, the AFM never figured out a plan for library production music composers. It went right over their heads.

The concept though of performing on a score, earning your session fee for that session, then getting residuals for life or for every re-broadcast is not sustainable in my honest opinion.

Side musicians, aka “session musicians” have to ask themselves, would they rather just get work for hire dates to play on a session and no residuals? or fight for residuals (free bonus money), but then watch all the live orchestra scoring work go to London or Prague?

I have been the beneficiary of residuals many times. They are great, but sometimes you started to earn so much money for doing nothing that you literally start thinking – is this sustainable? where is this money coming from?

You almost “felt guilty” for getting over paid.

The singers in the SAG union made ridiculous amounts of residuals “free money”…Sing for one hour on big brand jingle – earn a $500 or $700 “session fee”, but then pocket sometimes 100K in “residuals” over the next 2 years from all of the “performances” that aired.

Some professional LA, NYC, and Chicago Jingle singers in the 60’s to early 2000’s era had to hire personal book keepers just to count and deposit all the residual checks that were showing up in their mail boxes each day.

Anyway, indeed now that Apple, Disney, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon etc are now all “movie producers” or “content creators”…clearly we all need to find ways to grab some money from these companies launching these subscription services because .01 cent royalties for streams for background underscore is NOT SUSTAINABLE.

[Music1234]

Let’s face it 99% of the news out there is negative. Not just the music news, but any news.

Give Vinnie Calliuta’s episode 6 Podcast a listen:

https://breakfastwithvinnie.com/episodes?fbclid=IwAR139oOIfkBIG_wrLr5Ydyc6gcGFtwy32LNCea5khikjFk3rStRhNeI-udk

For those who may not know him, he’s one of the greatest living drummers on the planet.

What he’s saying here is that music content creators are just constantly under assault by tech companies, labels, and greedy business men. Music creators are often just robbed because we have not been able to create a scenario where we are the first to collect, unfortunately we are always last in the food chain to collect and everyone between us and our buyers takes advantage of that.

The behavior of the majors is now gradually spilling over into the production music/ sync licensing world. Now I am starting to wonder if the very institutions put in place to protect us: performing rights organizations, are also “robbing” us.

Navigate your career with prudence, don’t take every deal thrown at you. If you have the chops, the quality, and a sizable catalog to offer, don’t be afraid to negotiate more favorable terms, regardless of who the company is. Never be afraid to rattle the chains to get after your money. If you just sit back and play nice, be humble, speak positively, avoid confrontation, and remain that “easy going” music creator, you may just end up getting robbed.

Actually, you will get robbed.

[Music1234]

@Strat56, the other angle you can take is to ask SOCAN to reach out to BMI via the reciprocal agreement to collect your performance royalties. I hate to say it but the more we all look into this, the more it simply feels like ASCAP has a different, hidden agenda as to how they want to allocate the revenue they have collected from all these Sports networks mentioned above.

The facts are that all of these sports networks do pay all 3 PRO’s annual license fees to broadcast music from their repetoire. They in turn are supposed to pay us. This really is a black and white situation. There should be no “survey” gray here. We all created music specifically for this kind of content to earn placements into sports programming. Often it’s driving electric guitar rock, or big orchestral football themes, some hip hop too. Then we do not get paid? wtf?

I think Paul Williams and the entire ASCAP leadership needs to watch this video again:

They are doing the exact opposite of what they promise they will do for writers. I am an optimist though. I think they will get this right next quarter.

[Music1234]

@pgbanker, Go with the senior director of public relations for now. I have e-mailed Paul and others I have spoken with over the years and our voice is being heard. I received an e-mail reply that looks like they are going to take a second look at things. BUT, each voice heard is important so don’t let me be the only guy to do the protesting. The e-mail I got today is a positive step in the right direction. Art, thank you for reaching out to Paul too.

ASCAP, if you are reading this we will not escalate this if you pay for the cue sheets and performances. We understand that this is not Prime Time, ABC, NBC, CBS with large national audiences, but at the same time these programs and TV networks are worth something. You are getting paid by them, so we should be getting paid for the performances that aired.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/cathyhnevins/

cnevins@ascap.com

[Music1234]

Unfortunately it has to be resolved with persistence. They are hoping you will change your mind. They did the same thing to me. Escalate the request to the CEO and email him and other managers each day until the account is entirely removed. That was how I handled it. It took me several e-mails to have the music removed.

Try this guy:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/skarpowicz/

[Music1234]

@Beatslinger and LA Writer, it is true that ASCAP does not want to pay cue sheets for:
Fox Sports 1
Fox Sports 2
NBA TV
Big Ten Network
The Golf Channel
NFL Network
MLB
NHL HOCKEY

Instead they want to occasionally “survey” these networks.

BMI does pay off of cue sheets for these networks and they are not just paying pennies. Additionally, this has nothing to do with “negativity”. This is real reporting of what we’re all actually seeing (or not seeing) on statements. The survey method of paying for performances is out dated and completely ridiculous. A cue sheet is a cue sheet and a cue sheet is PROOF of a performance. A performance is supposed to be paid. It’s that plain and simple.

The silly “survey” just gives ASCAP more choice as to how they want to distribute the slush fund. It’s not right. Hey guys, I wrote to Paul Williams about this yesterday and other folks at ASCAP…Are you other ASCAP writers going to step up and do the same?

Art, thankfully your site exists. It is good that all of us can discuss our experiences here and uncover these nuances. Hopefully we can all take action to bring out some policy changes over at ASCAP.

Our PRO’s are not “poison” by any means…they can be little beotches though at times.

[Music1234]

Hey all, as I continue to investigate even further the problem extends beyong just BTN. It’s also a few other cable networks including all these.

https://www.xfinity.com/learn/digital-cable-tv/sports

I also verified that my BMI co -writer was paid $72 for a cue drop on NBC Sports Network an extra cable channel. I was not paid for the same cue title on this network.

Here is what we all need to do to get results, hopefully

1. File an inquiry at ASCAP today
2. E-mail everyone on the board of directors at ASCAP and inform them of this problem and point them to this thread. Here they all are:
https://www.ascap.com/press/2019/03/03-26-2019-Board-Elections
3. Threaten to pull catalog and change to BMI if they do not start taking these networks seriously.They are selling blanket licenses to these networks which bolsters the $1.3 billion slush fund. They seem to be deciding that this money coming from NBC Sports network, Golf channel, BTN, NBA TV, etc…is not worthy of distributing to writers unless it is in the ridiculous “survey”. This is absurd. BMI does not see it that way.

I can conclude that I have been duped out of at least 3 to 5 K these past 3 years because of ASCAP’S policy about these networks “not worth their time”

This is Rubbish. These networks are on Sports bars all the time, nationwide broadcasting stuff and people are watching! This is not the obscure local Christian Preacher TV channel 894 that no one ever watches.

Please, everyone, dial up the protest. Threaten to move to BMI, and hopefully they will start to pay off these cue sheets.

I have appreciated what ASCAP has done for me for 25 years now but this is just not right!

[Music1234]

@pgbanker – I am out of luck already….My inquiry/ message has been closed with the response below. The irony of this is that ASCAP, being the one PRO that does display cue sheets for us to look at, (BMI and SESAC do not show all cue sheets filed in our accounts) does not pay us based on the cue sheets filed, instead they use the good ole survey. Below is ASCAP’s sophisticated and wordy way of saying “we simply do not feel like paying for BTN cues because it’s not economically feasible.” But, the attorney I met assured me that ASCAP was paid by BTN/ FOX so that ultimately the writers would be paid. I studied 12 qtrs of BTN cue sheets and ASCAP statements. ASCAP paid two royalties totaling $78 for 416 cue sheets from BTN.

Does anyone know how much air time they actually “survey” in a given quarter?

ASCAP monitors performances on the Big Ten Network using our sample survey method. As you may be aware, whenever it is economically feasible, ASCAP will conduct a census survey, or complete count, of performances in a medium. In this type of survey ASCAP is able to count all performances in a medium when the cost of collecting and processing accurate data is a low enough percentage of the licensing revenue that the medium generates. Where a census survey is impractical, we conduct a sample survey designed to be a statistically accurate representation of performances in a medium. All times of the day, all days of the year, every region of the country and all types and sizes of stations are represented in the ASCAP sample surveys. Upon receiving this claim we have researched performances on the Big Ten Network covering the performance period October 1, 2017 through March 31, 2019 (4Q17-1Q19) to ensure your distribution statements reflecting those performance periods were accurate. Please note that per our current policies, we are only able to review performances beginning October 1, 2017 at this time. Based on the provided information and our records, unfortunately none of the performances per these cue sheets fell within the sample date(s) and time(s) covering the aforementioned quarters on the Big Ten Network therefore no royalties were generated for these performances. If there are any additional performances in question please do not hesitate to submit a new Member Access “Message” for our review. Additionally please feel free to review ASCAP’s Governing Documents (Survey and Distribution Rules, https://www.ascap.com/about-us/governingDocuments) and reach out via a new Message or by phone at 800-952-7227 with any additional questions.

[Music1234]

@pgbanker and Mark. Now that I have learned about this BTN/ FOX issue from an attorney, I will first give ASCAP a chance to pay me for the 400 cue sheets on file. I logged an inquiry in my on line account as we’re supposed to do. I suggest you guys do the same and present BMI co write statements as evidence that co writers were paid by BMI. If several ASCAP writers all log an inquiry, they may look closely at this and distribute for those 2016 to 2018 performances in the next cycle. It does seem clear as day that FOX/ BTN did their part in paying the PRO’s. It’s now up to ASCAP to pay the writers.

For the record, I did not go to this law office cocktail party with any intent of finding lawyers to help address problems with ASCAP. I just went to have a drink, a good time and this conversation with a lawyer who used to work for FOX/ BTN fell on my lap. It was merely a coincidence.

[Music1234]

Very interesting development here. So last night I was invited to an office warming party by two attorney friends of mine. They just wanted to celebrate the launch of their new firm and include friends for drinks. Of course, lots of attorneys were there. Naturally some folks ask you what you do for a living. When I mentioned music producer for TV, film and advertising, one female attorney said “I recently handled a project for Fox/ BTN where the goal was to avoid being sued by composers who were not getting paid for BTN music use on air.”

Wow! what a game changer that statement was in the discussion! So after I informed her of how I have never been paid a single cent for BTN cue sheets ( I counted today and I have around 300 to 400 filed), she just kind of rolled her eyes and said “That is crazy becasue I was the attorney in charge of this project to make sure every cue was documented on a cue sheet so composers would be paid.”

I have her card now. I see a pretty good opportunity here to enlist an attorney to file a class action law suit against ASCAP for no payments from BTN cue sheets and air dates. I logged a message inside my ASCAP account about this. If you are an ASCAP writer who has not been paid for BTN performances, you should do the same. After talking to this attorney it seems like ASCAP is negligent here. They have been giving us all the excuse of “if it does not get tracked in our survey, we will not pay you.”

This attorney told me that BTN and FOX absolutely paid and do pay the PRO’s, ASCAP included, and therefore all composer names on those cue sheets should be getting paid. FOX owns 51% of the BTN as it is a joint venture between FOX and The Big Ten Schools.

I will be following up on this next week.If you are an ASCAP writer in the same situation for BTN cue sheets, I suggest you dial up the pressure on ASCAP as soon as possible. It sounds to me that they have collected money from BTN/ FOX, but are not in the mood to distribute it to writers. And they are hiding behind the excuse of “it’s not getting tracked in our surveys.” I doubt ASCAP would want to see a class action law suit for this, so hopefully they can reach into their 1.3 Billion stash and pay all of us our fair share for BTN background cues.

[Music1234]

All that you say Kevin makes sense, but can you address the extreme lack of transparency in the model?

Example: Subscription Licensing platform attracts 10,000 customers all paying $200 a year for their subscription. Company collects $2,000,000.

How do you divide that money up?

How do songwriters/ music producers know that the first collector is conducting honest and fair accounting?

I can see how the model works if the number of artists contributing music is capped at say 100 or 200 writers. But if the platform has 1000 music contributors, i see a huge amount of room for accounting errors and blatant corruption.

Do the models you participate in display the number of downloads your tracks are getting each day? week? month?

If you get statements that only show:

1. Name of Song …then….earnings the song made during the last month. Well I am sorry, that is not transparent information that makes a music producer trust this new system. I definitely comprehend the opportunity to collect a lot of revenue. I am very skeptical as to how the subscription fees are distributed. From my perspective the transparency is non existent.

I heard that Artlist only pays artists once a year. If true, I find it shocking that songwriters/ music producers would accept such a deal. If anyone can verify that as a fact please chime in.

[Music1234]

Below is what “some of” a normal sync fee statement looks like. Steve I am not studying the statement from a perspective of what all tracks earn each month, however it may be interesting to analyze earnings “per month” “per track” in the traditional sync fee model. The data below still looks a lot better than post #1 which was subscription revenue data.

Devaluation is devaluation. Plain and simple

What I have learned from my sources selling in subscription is that monthly earnings are still a lot better in the sync fee model. And the only reason why they are earning fairly well is because contributors are capped. If all music producers were allowed to participate in the model, everyone’s monthly earnings would crash, and crash hard. The more participants contributing music to a subscription based model, the less all earn.

We clearly are far better off supporting the individual sync fee model. I still argue that accurate, fair accounting is impossible in subscription models and entirely up to platform operator to decide on. It’s especially suspicious when license data, and download data are not shared. It’s basically a “winging it” approach.

$25
$25
$25
$25
$30
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$84.80
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$30
$43.83
$25
$25
$17.30
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25.86
$7.50
$54.80
$40
$25
$25
$25
$25
$84.73
$84.80
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$54.71
$25
$25
$25
$25
$54.80
$25
$25
$25
$25
$54.80
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$54.80
$25
$25
$30
$25
$84.80
$25
$84.80
$25
$25
$25
$84.80
$25
$25
$40
$25
$20.83
$54.80
$25
$25
$30
$22.05
$25
$25
$25
$25
$34.80
$25
$84.79
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25
$25

[Music1234]

I have “tested out” 10 tracks in a subscription model with a co-writer. Am I a hypocrite? Yes, sort of, I suppose. But I do think it’s important to actually see, first hand, what these models pay. Below are last months royalties earned from the 10 tracks in that model.

For the record, I do consider these tracks to have very high broadcast quality production value. These are not old back catalog midi only tracks. These have live drums, real guitars, real bass, some have high quality vocals, some were done as demos for very high end advertising projects.

I am eliminating track titles for privacy. Again, no data as to who used the music? How many downloads occurred? How the music will be used? nothing….Just a track title, and the royalties earned. $40 or $4 per track. Not impressive. Tracks are ubiquitous, accounting is mysterious and known only by the “accounting Gods” above. I don’t know anything, and never will.

If each of these 10 tracks sold just one “standard” sync license, The earnings would be more around $150 to $400 (I am assuming standard prices of say $30 to $60 and a 50/50 revenue share split). Again, more evidence that these models result in 70% to 90% devaluation of music assets. I am not impressed. What do you think? Do you want to see this evolve as the “new normal”?

$18.85
$ 4.66
$ 1.77
$ 0.98
$ 0.72
$ 0.96
$ 3.64
$ 6.52
$ 0.86
$ 1.90

[Music1234]

Read here Paul.

CD Baby’s parent company buys AdRev and DashGo

https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8093701/cd-baby-parent-company-acquires-adrev-and-dashgo

[Music1234]

Chuck it’s a cool service. If you write a song a need a great singer, you have two choices:
1. work with who you already know
2. Go to sound better and browse/ audition vocalists for your song

Same is true for any session musician. If you need an amazing drummer (for example) on your track, you will probably find someone great on Sound Better.

Why did Spotify buy it? Great question….I guess they see it as opportunity to skim more royalties (session fees) from musicians. Sound Better is just a middle man (sigh again) in between musicians and their money.

We desperately need a “death to middlemen” disruptive business model that we can all support and just rid ourselves of these people who are always in between us, and our money. They always seem to get their hands on the money before we do.

Hopefully one day, there will be a business model where we actually can collect all the sync fee money first without middle men in the transaction skimming from us.

When you think about it, the artist is always last in the food chain to be paid. First to create the soundtrack and bring it to market, but unfortunately, always last to be paid and far too often, not paid at all (Look at SCRIPPS) makes me want to vomit every time I see a tunesat detection. Thousands of air plays of my music on SCRIPPS TV SHOWS, yet no money for me. Only the greedy publisher gets to pocket that money.

I recently called a publisher out and said “hey man I hope you are enjoying all those blanket fees your’e charging scripps…they sure do like to use a lot of my music. You get paid but I don’t so enjoy the extra gravy on me.”

He said “well as soon as the editors of those shows move on to a better job at another network, they’ll remember you and use your stuff again.” So I guess I can take comfort that SCRIPPS acts as “exposure” for me. No money, but I am “exposed” to editors who may get a new job down the line. LOL!

[Author]

Posts