Mark Lewis

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 238 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Artlist.io #27125
    Mark Lewis
    Participant

    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 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.

    in reply to: Artlist.io #27114
    Mark Lewis
    Participant

    hi muchasmusic. nevermind.

    in reply to: Crucial Music or MusicLoops #27107
    Mark Lewis
    Participant

    they always were “Opt In” to Rumblefish

    Not always. Not in 2012 when they entered all of their composer’s music into rumblefish without the composer’s permission or consent and then refused to remove all of the false copyright claims appearing on our client’s youtube videos.

    in reply to: Crucial Music or MusicLoops #27098
    Mark Lewis
    Participant

    I have music in both also, but opted out of the Crucial Rumblefish deal.

    Many composers don’t understand that they have to opt-out (shouldn’t it be opt-in?) or even understand what Rumblefish does. So they join musicloops without knowing that their music triggers copyright flags because of their involvement with Crucial.
    Easier for me to just to say ‘No Crucial’ and be done with it.

    Composers who have been with ML for 5 to 10 years like you guys are of course not subject to these ‘new composer sign-up’ conditions.

    in reply to: Crucial Music or MusicLoops #27096
    Mark Lewis
    Participant

    Hey Small Ocean-
    Best thing to do is simply send in your submission.
    If you’re accepted (we are not accepting very many new composers at this point) then I will ask where your music is placed.
    No need to overthink it.
    – Mark

    To be clear though: The Crucial Music notice is meant for people who currently have their catalog in their library. If their music was there in the past then there is a good chance it is also in Rumblefish.
    We don’t want anything to do with Rumblefish in our library as both Crucial and Rumblefish are unresponsive when it comes to removing false copyright claims and removing catalogs from youtube contentID when requested by the composer (in my experience).

    in reply to: Use of music by RF Clients #27095
    Mark Lewis
    Participant

    In the literal sense ‘Royalty Free’ means not having to pay a separate fee for every use once a license is purchased.
    And most RF licenses are in perpetuity. I have never seen a time limit stated in any RF license that I have had experience with. Like, ‘you can only use this music in your youtube video for 3 years’. That wouldn’t be very cool.
    It is also important to include ‘in perpetuity’ in the license to protect your client. If you decided to sell your music outright to someone at a later date that new owner could feasibly go back and take legal action to pull your track from videos and movies and commercials unless ‘in perpetuity’ was included in the wording. ‘In perpetuity’ means ‘not subject to termination’.

    But of course you should contact each library you are dealing with to get a specific answer to your question.

    in reply to: Mastering for Music Libraries #26851
    Mark Lewis
    Participant

    library owners seem to suggest “louder is better,” and that not maximizing loudness will hurt sales.

    I think you might be extrapolating suggestions for common sense compression and mastering techniques into whipping out the L1 maximizer and cranking the waveform until it is a solid black bar.

    If customers can’t hear the solo violin intro to your super hybrid orchestral track then they are going to move on in a few seconds before getting to the meat of your composition.

    I have also seen a few composers who don’t even normalize their mixes let alone master them properly.
    I’m pretty sure that is who the library owners are referring to, not composers using accepted common sense mixing techniques.

    in reply to: Selling Loops? #26768
    Mark Lewis
    Participant

    Yes, any library that sells sound effects will probably have drum loops as well, like AS and P5. Our sound effects site sells drum loops as well.
    But strict music libraries really have no use for them.

    in reply to: Selling Loops? #26766
    Mark Lewis
    Participant

    Drum loops are a completely different market. You would be looking at sites that sell to composers and music producers rather than people looking for music that they can drop into their projects.
    For example the people who visit MLR would be your target customer.

    in reply to: Exclusive vs. Non-Exclusive Strategy? #26742
    Mark Lewis
    Participant

    Are we supposed to be thrilled about helping libraries prep for a sale where they sell our creations and make all the money?

    No.

    Mark, would you not have to take full ownership of the cues? Literally buy them?

    No.

    I think even library owners would admit that is accurate info.

    Sure.

    in reply to: Exclusive vs. Non-Exclusive Strategy? #26729
    Mark Lewis
    Participant

    I think music libraries might have other motives for switching to an exclusive business model other than trying to make it easier for a couple of confused video editors.
    An exclusive music catalog adds value to a company. These companies that are switching might be looking to the future for a possible sale or to attract investors.
    When selling a non-exclusive music library (like mine) you can only really ask for a multiple of annual earnings, everything is there in black and white. An exclusive library has more indirect value which can be set at just about anything as long as they find a willing buyer.
    An exclusive catalog is seen as an asset to the company where a non-exclusive catalog can almost be seen as a liability in that the composers actually have ultimate control over the music catalog and what happens to it rather than the company itself.
    If I ever decided to sell my company I would start asking for exclusivity as well.

    in reply to: Seeking feedback & advice #26533
    Mark Lewis
    Participant

    Hi CJones

    Just my observations…

    Endless Possibilities
    This is a great track. Well produced and perfect for a more intelligent corporate music / motivational type cue.

    Summer Vibes
    This is good, a little dated, or maybe retro. The only thing I would say is that it sounds like a vocal track with the vocals removed leaving the verses and bridge kind of sparse and less interesting. The bass line could move a bit more maybe.

    The Hero Returns
    There are tons of orchestral/trailer cues called ‘The Hero Returns’ but this one is done really well. Nicely produced and doesn’t sound simply slapped together from the same orchestral and percussive plugins that everyone else is using.

    in reply to: Where might I be going wrong? #26393
    Mark Lewis
    Participant

    Very nice!
    Instead of starting right at the eastern instruments bit I would just cut out the first two solo synth notes and start with the synth plus guitar note fade in. There is constant movement and building from that point on.
    Love the feel change in the middle.
    Very nice track. Would work in many situations.

    in reply to: Where might I be going wrong? #26373
    Mark Lewis
    Participant

    +1 for Recording Revolution on youtube and facebook. Great stuff.
    https://www.facebook.com/recordingrevolution/?fref=ts

    in reply to: Where might I be going wrong? #26370
    Mark Lewis
    Participant

    Does non-mastered music instantly stand out as a flop to people choosing music such as yourself?

    For me personally your current mixes that you have posted here would work just fine, no problem at all. Most clients don’t have a very nuanced ear and simply know what they like when they hear it.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 238 total)