Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I aim for -12 rms on modern pop/rock stuff seems to be ok balance, -10 rms for music that actually uses hyper compression for the sound. I would think that -12 rms may sound too squashed for some types of acoustic or orchestral music.
The trick is to use the most transparent limiter you can, my go to is the Fabfilter pro L. It is outstanding , you can demo it next to your own go to.
Ian Shepard has some great videos explaining the new average loudness algos used now, and that less compressed music will actually sound louder. There is a great comparison of U2 recordings on his channel and the the way that they are treated on streaming services.
So when ABC and The BBC use non pro registered music licensed at RF sites that require the music not be registered at a PRO, what happens on the cue sheets?
On the assumption that the PRS operates the same as here (it usually does) all that money is put into an unclaimed pot and distributed to PRS members. The cue sheet could just name the program, or it could be as simple as The name of the track or Pump audio.
The BBC would insist that any outside commissioned program’s would have all this info attached. As long as the program maker shows a valid license for music they don’t care.
As I said in a previous post, the irony would be that PRO members in countries that do this benefit from more non pro registers tracks being used in their territory. They are required by law to pay and to the best of their ability identify the payee. If they can’t identify the composer the money is paid anyway.
I can look up unclaimed monies in Ireland, there is a lot of it.
Heres a strange thought on this one, In Ireland unclaimed royalties go into a fund which is divided out pro rata to all its members.
All TV and Radio here is PRO registered therefore any track derived from a performance free library would have its PRO money paid by the broadcaster anyway, it would then sit unclaimed in the Irish PRO and be distributed ultimately to me and others.
So not only does the original composer not get paid, but other composers who have no contribution to the music do.
So in a really twisted way if the performance free quota went up here I would be better off as the original creators would not be getting their share, we would. Something not right there !!!!
yeah – the squares and rectangles placed on a vertical keyboard. Unless you do a lot of preparing and reading parts, getting fluent with the piano roll is probably more useful.
As we already mentioned Hans Zimmer does not read music but reads a piano roll brilliantly. In this day and age probably a skill equally as valuable as music notation.
Just playing devils advocate:
John Williams
Thomas Newman
Harry Gregson Williams
Hans Zimmer
Steve Jablonsky
James Newton Howard
Michael Giachino
Brian Tyler
EtcHans Zimmer famously doesn’t read music, however point well made.
I learnt how to read at music school, has its uses, and a skill set like many others, it is not a necessity.
It actually takes talent to write music that bad, funny.
The only way is to email them with your concerns I am afraid.
@MA I am not with PRS but IMRO (Ireland) we have virtually the same guidelines as the PRS, as in Ireland we actually used the PRS until 20 years ago when we went out on our own.
The MCPS is for Mechanical Copyright protection and they do have rate card for UK broadcasters. On the other side of the coin, I do know that they will act as an agent and negotiate with rights holders for sync licences if you want.
My only dealings have been for CD sales where they ( and others,is it Harry Fox in the US ? ) collect your mechanicals. In my instance it did go via a publisher as those songs were assigned. I dont know if an individual can join the MCPS.
The MCPS and PRS seem to be combined now.
How it works with sync licenses, I have no experience sorry.
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.
and here too, but if the “library” puts an individual PRO member down as a co-writer then they can do nothing about it. Also here (Ireland) they take a very dim view of production companies taking the publisher share. Implied in a publishing agreement is the publisher should be exploiting your material for mutual benefit. If they just demand publishing for your music, for it to be included in the their production, that is exploitative and just getting money for nothing.
Either way this deal sucks.
In the pop world it is not uncommon for the artist to demand a share of the writers cut, major difference being you can judge based on the artists stature what you are giving away, or more importantly may be gaining. This may hold true in exceptional cases in our world, say it was the a major TV news theme, you may decide it is worth it, but for a general term for a library without any guarantee, it really is exploitative.
@MA what a strange video.
I am not even interested in YT monetization by any means for primarily the very simple reasons
1.It goes against the TOS of the libraries I am in.
2.There is absolutely no money in it. ( maybe thats no 1 LOL)Lets just say hypothetically there was money in it and ADREV claimed that they could work it for you via some scheme and by very quickly reversing claims.
1. You would piss off the libraries concerned.
2. More importantly ADREV would be struck out of the whole scheme because of the amount of false claims they would be making. See my post above about that.TBH I dont even think about it, it really is a non starter.
Content ID will match a user’s reference content against every upload to YouTube. Therefore, applicants must have the exclusive rights to the material that is evaluated. Common examples of items that may not be exclusive to individuals include:
Under the terms of use, the music must be exclusive. No?
Yes that is correct, as stated in the text quotes above from Youtube’s specific criteria link. It is in very plain english with no lawyer speak LOL. How any non exclusive library or composer could possibly misinterpret this is beyond me, however a few have tried !!!!
I noticed that they have changed the FAQ page with obvious reference to the plethora of false claims. Mark ML is the expert on all of this.
Bottom line, don’t enter into any kind of monetization scheme unless your music is exclusive to the participating library. There are no if or buts about it, if you have tracks with P5, ML, JP etc etc or any other non ex, you cannot enter into a YT monetization scheme with those tracks.
Any links anywhere that explain this whole thing clearly?
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370?hl=en
This is youtube content id explained, different from royalties.From the horses mouth so to speak.
Who can use Content ID?
YouTube only grants Content ID to content owners who meet specific criteria. To be approved, content owners must own exclusive rights to a substantial body of original material that is frequently uploaded by the YouTube user community.
YouTube also sets explicit guidelines on how to use Content ID. We monitor Content ID use and disputes on an ongoing basis to ensure these guidelines are followed. Content owners who repeatedly make erroneous claims can have their Content ID access disabled and their partnership with YouTube terminated.
I believe this is new , maybe they finally got sense and saw the crazy claims going on.!!!!
Crikey
Your going to hate me for this, there is no right answer. It really is site specific. As a very general rule 3-5 at a time at monthly intervals, on the assumption that you have few tracks already there. Some sites could be very different.
@Denis…NO. With ASCAP the money goes into a “fund” that gets distributed a number of ways. Artists can apply for ASCAP Awards, if they can document performances that were outside the survey. I did that once and, I think they paid in the area of $150.
Thats the way we used to do it until it went into a searchable database online. Major difference is Ireland is tiny compared to the US, so that makes it manageable and feasible.