Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hah.. So handclaps… ukulele… whistling… oh my god, I think I’ve seen inside the matrix
Where’s the ukulele?
God, not this again. Please don’t take humpalumpa’s opinion to be representative of UK composers.
As I posted in another thread, I am also a UK composer with a bunch of tracks in top MCPS libraries. I did not use a single live instrument. The tracks are being used on BBC primetime programs.
Maybe humpalumpa is trolling as their writing seems familiar from some other post, I can’t quite remember which one.
It’s not all Downton Abbey here Michael. It just seems like it when there’s a post like the above.
Also, anyone can submit to the labels which the top MCPS libs run – anyone – and if you’re good enough and lucky enough (i.e. they need your genre right now) you will probably get in.
Paying to submit music is ludicrous. I would never do this.
The problem with the buyout is in these potential scenarios:
– They license one of your tracks for a cinema release in the US, at a fee of $20,000. You get nothing. You get zero license fee and zero back end since there is no PRO on US cinema releases.
Ditto the above for all corporate, lots of advertising and lots of internet uses. Plus plenty more I probably can’t think of right now.
I never sign a deal without retaining a decent amount of license fee split. Sometimes there is no backend, but there is a heavy license fee. When I get paid up front, it’s $250/track and I keep at least 30% of license fees and 50% of all broadcast. The rest of the time I get nothing up front and 50% of both.
Thinking that them giving you $2,000 incentivizes them to place your tracks on TV is flawed – it incentivizes them to make money out of your tracks, whether it be front or back end money, and it just might turn out to be front end.
Bradymusico, it’s better not to reply as by doing so you just feed the troll.
In answer to the OP. ‘Social media’ is an avenue for marketing and promotion of your brand and/or product. If you engage in marketing and promotion then the answer is obvious. How you do it is difficult. Email lists are a good idea for the long term, or perhaps twitter followers. You can then send out your latest album to all of them for example.
These days almost everyone I know, when they want to listen to a song and don’t own it, goes to Youtube and listens to it there for free. Lots of the versions there are not authorized, don’t have ads and so on. I don’t think I’ve seen copyright infringement on such a large scale in my life as I do on Youtube. It’s not difficult for songs to be downloaded using an online service either, so even though everyone seems to stream easily now, they could also download them if they wanted.
How does Youtube keep getting away with it? I guess reading how they beat Viacom would tell me.
Hi MA, I’m a UK writer. Feel free to PM me if you like.
More Advice: you’re the guy that kept hearing his music on an ad everyday but wasn’t getting paid for it right?
Before we get into this, when you check your track’s registration on the PRS database, exactly what % do you come up as having under PRS? (Not MCPS)
That is true. They can be put down as co-writers to get round the restriction here.
Yea, agreed, when there’s no sync fee you can hope for, and such a small up front payment, losing half your writer’s share is (in my opinion!) beyond ridiculous.
Forget morally acceptable, it’s a bum deal. I would tell them that I want my writer’s share (it’s called writer, because it’s for the WRITER, remember?) or they can forget it.
Did you know that at the PRS, it’s actually written in their constitution that the writer cannot be put down for less than 50% of total performance royalties when a track is registered on the PRS database? So in the UK with the PRS this wouldn’t even be allowed.
Holy cow, what razor do you use Mark? That has to be the closest shave I’ve ever seen!
I let stuff ring out in the breaks for mine, though I don’t do many tracks with pronounced breaks anyway.
Saying RF, should you? is a bit like saying production music, should you? to a musician. RF is HUGE in diversity. You could have 100 tracks in an exclusive RF and be making 100k/year from that one library. Or you could have 10 times as many tracks in 3 different non-ex RF libraries and make next to nothing. It varies so, so much. The answer is obviously yes, if you can make it work for you.
I have been trying not to get into this thread but I think it’s worth it.
Firstly, can we have a definition of RF put somewhere to avoid this debate on the meaning of RF! It is not performance royalty free, it is mechanical royalty free. Maybe Art could just put that at the top of the thread. The tricky details are in whether RF libraries require cue sheets and stuff like that, and that obviously varies from one RF library to the next.
I want to present some points on Emma’s post to begin with.
1. Her first point. I’m not sure what her definition of RF is, but if it’s the one above then this point is false. I and others I know have had tracks on UK television including Sky Sports and the like, which have been placed by RF libraries. Granted, I’m not talking P5 but they were still RF libraries. In fact I’m sure you’ve heard of Audio Network – well they make the old MCPS libraries really ‘prickly’ because they’re RF and they’re doing incredibly well with performance royalties in the UK. Audio Network is RF in that it permits the licensee to purchase a license to a track and then reuse that track in as many episodes of its show as it wants without further mechanicals being due (for example).
2. Her second point. I agree: for the ‘good’ placements generally the music has to have something special. However, real instruments are no longer needed to accomplish this in many genres. This is based on, again, mine and my writer friends’ experience. We have tracks in libraries like KPM, airing on the BBC which were made on laptops with no instrument in sight. I am not saying anyone can do it, but I am saying the real instrument argument is incorrect for a lot of genres.
There are a number of points I wanted to make besides the above:
a) Surely we must have all thought at one time: If a pro is so good, then why are they concerned about these amateur loop stitchers in the first place? I mean if the pro’s music is so superior why do they need to complain about the competition? I think this is a sign of how the market has changed and conventional pros feel threatened. Barrier to entry to make music is lower – the cost and skill required to make music are lower. But opportunities have grown enormously for licensing. And along the way composers haven’t grouped together so their negotiating positions have become weak(er). So now there are some top quality tracks going for $2 a pop on P5. And that is scary if your library charges $500 per needle drop. But still, after all this, for the best placements you need to make something special – and if you have talent plus some business understanding (plus some luck!) you can still do well.
b) You can make a living from RF. $100k+/year. But it is also true that the best paying backend placements – from my experience – still come from MCPS or top tier exclusive RF libraries.
c) There is no ‘morally’ right or wrong. If what we call an amateur wants to make a track with royalty free loops they’ve bought and try to sell it then good for them. If a library wants to offer music with no PRO attachment they are entitled to do so, with certain conditions etc.
But what I think we should do is educate composers and try to unite. If an ‘amateur’ makes some outstanding music but has no business knowledge then yes, they might get taken advantage of in the sense that they will negotiate very weakly with a potential library / production company etc – that is bad for them, and for us.
We can’t force other composers to do anything, and we shouldn’t put them down when they do something we don’t agree with. We ‘simply’ need to make sure they understand the market as best as possible and the value of their product so that they can make an informed choice. This will be real progress for bringing composers more power in library music.
If we can’t even agree on the definition of RF without bickering, how are we going to get behind a common cause: educating composers and exercising our strength together?
For my part, here are the principles I go by in library music:
1. I don’t sign exclusively with any library unless they either a) offer me money up front to sign per track or b) have a very strong track record, e.g. that could be Extreme / Audio Network / others like them for example. But when they do meet either (a) and/or (b) I don’t hesitate and I am happy to sign my tracks to them in perpetuity. One caveat: When I first started I had to relax this rule and just take the plunge with a few places. Some of my tracks are in lifetime deals and make nothing, but that’s the price I had to pay to find the libraries which do do well for me.
2. If working with non-exclusives, I don’t put the same music all over the place e.g. in many different non-exclusives. I also use a pseudonym for non-exclusive libraries. To be honest, I don’t see much value to me in non-exclusives. I’d rather put my music in an exclusive that’s going to go to every trouble to a) market it and b) have its interest in the publishing share so that it goes for the big placements, and then chases up cue sheets and performance royalties.
3. I don’t put music with companies like JP that offer blanket licenses. I don’t like the feeling of that. Even if I get 0.05% of their blanket fee, I’m not convinced. And apparently you don’t usually get a share of the blanket anyway.
4. I also never, ever accept less than 50% of total performance royalties. I will go to 30% on mechanicals if it’s really a big opportunity. E.g. if the tracks are pretty much guaranteed some good airtime and I’ll get my 50% of those performance royalties, well I can accept 30% on the sync in that case.
5. I would never grant gratis licenses to any entity unless it is an absolute guaranteed-to-air-on-TV placement with a production company directly.
So there are my principles. Let’s see yours – perhaps we can then work towards something like a library composer handbook which adapts to fit all levels. And this site would be a great place to do that together. Art, what do you think?
Music pro I completely and utterly disagree with what you have said. You are seeing it purely from the desperate standpoint of wanting the $28k deal.
1. You need to look at it from a business perspective: they waltz up and open their wallets with $28k asking (apparently) for 50% of writer’s share. Therefore you know they have deep pockets and it’s worth more to them than $28k. A lot more. THEY are being greedy if anyone here is. At this point in the deal, Peter not making a counter offer is like a puppy rolling over in awe.
2. You don’t know what Peter’s music is like. You say everyone makes music these days. Yea? Well not everyone makes the music you hear on a globally distributed trailer for the latest blockbuster. Before you assume he’s just another sample looper how about you consider that maybe his product is exceptional and worth A LOT more than $28k.
3. Your attitude is exactly what contributes to the slide downwards of what composers can negotiate for. Don’t do it! Become better at business for your sake, and for all composers’ sakes!
Lastly, you know what? His music must be worth a lot more than $28k for them to offer that much.
Just imagine this scenario: here’s a company where each one of their office chairs is worth more than your kitchen. They have a deal lined up to license Peter’s tracks for approx $300k over 10 years. They come along to Peter and say yea we’ll give you $28k and 50% of the 200% broadcast royalties. Peter goes oh it would be just so awfully greedy of me to ask for HALF the broadcast royalties!!
COME ON GUYS!