Chris Jones recently wrote an article about re-titling over at SonicScoop. I thought it would be of interest to many and Chris kindly gave us permission to re-post it here.
By Chris Jones
With master recording licensing and synchronization now being the current revenue-generating and promotional system in the music industry, we see all the traditional recording exploitation boundaries disappearing.
Music libraries take on scoring gigs, produce artists/songwriters, and ad work while maintaining their catalogs of TV-ready production music. Record labels seem to be fully hitched to omni-lateral licensing pie, artist-endorsed ad campaigns, single tie-ins, whatever. Add the quick-and-easy factor of digital delivery AND soon-to-be ubiquitous audio recognition tech AND deeper metadata AND the slippery slope of what passes as acceptable quality both audio- and video-wise AND this is America, the land of excess. Production = bigger and faster, but not always better.
Point: The “production music” pool is one big pattern-recognizing server of every kind of gang. It’s all our turf. Can you dig it?
One of these “gangs” or business models in production music specific publishers is the re-title library or (to illustrate points using metaphor and acronym) “inert” libraries. It’s a (typically) Independent Non-Exclusive ReTitle music library that will rep your catalog after they give your (only) master a unique title. The library then registers that unique title to their PRO (be it ASCAP, BMI, et al.) as that titles’ “publisher” and can then go forward and collect future performance royalties on said title and also collect any other fees (direct license, sync) associated with licensing. From the research I’ve done, this model has the composer world polarized yet unified in one aspect: we seem to be waiting for the other shoe to drop.”
On the surface, one would think: What’s to lose? I have tons of crap sitting on my drive doing nothing for nobody no-how. If someone can make me money and wants to take 50% please be my guest. And it’s non-exclusive? Even better. I’ll look up every re-title library and get cracking. Man, I am sitting on a f*****g gold mine.
So, should I sign with an inert library? That question creates more questions and that is the universal choking sign of a deal to me. I agree that the inert model could be a positive way to crowd-source useful, high-quality, and (most importantly) available masters. But I speak from the viewpoint of a composer that has a specific agenda of producing a high volume of library music for the big exclusive Production Music Association (PMA) libs in addition to what I’ll call “custom” music like songwriting, sound design for composers, remixing, whatever.
There are many ways to poke holes in the inert model, but let’s start with imminent ubiquity of audio pattern recognition technology. BMI acquired BlueArrow almost 5 years ago, and ASCAP has been working on Mediaguide since 2002. These are technologies and services that give your audio/masters a fingerprint via audio analysis, not traditional watermarking (which is hit-or-miss and distorts the file). The tech then monitors broadcasts looking for matches. Soon (the sooner the better) all broadcasts are going to be monitored with this robotic vigilance. Unfailing accuracy. Amid endless dirty AM radio ads, it will be searching for your singularly unique combination of digital DNA. Wait, what-the? This track has 5 titles and 5 publishers…the robot computes.
I’m curious how that’s going to work.
Plus, I thought the whole idea in business was to be exclusive. Where’d that go?
So I send this stupid breakbeat track called “A” to inert lib A. Inert lib A registers “A” to ASCAP as publisher. Already I’m uncomfortable. I send the same exact file to inert lib B. All the way to f*****g Z. I have 26 people claiming to publish my tracks? Are they all undercutting each other or is there a standardized fee? The fee is nothing because you gave sync away in lieu of the slow buck? You just gave away my 50% of shared sync but I guess the contract says you are publisher so you have that right. Oh and the gig was non-broadcast so there is no slow buck. No buck at all.
Oh well I’ll see money on the back end.
Holy s**t, there are 50,000 tracks on this drive! The editor, overhearing my subconscious italics, says 50,000 is way too much b*****t to wade through and goes back to cutting a backend-less corporate video. Then he looks closer. He’s p****d because it’s the same 50,000 tracks the guy from inert lib G left last week. He went through a random 100 or so and they all sucked so he figured they all must suck. Therefore, all inert libs must suck, he thinks. No wonder he waived sync. To charge would have been criminal and there’s no way he paid for this music.
I only have 25 tracks on that drive. I hope the users find them. Back-end may not enter the picture because there’s tons of s**t you never see called non-broadcast. It’s all front-end. So if they waive sync I’m screwed. If they direct license I’ll do better at .0002%, unless it’s .0002% of zero.
I hope A-Z keep tabs on the reporting process. I hope the drives aren’t circulating. I hope an exclusive deal on a track doesn’t come along because that would mean having to turn down a lot of money. I wonder if I could call every editor in the world that FTP-posted or p2ped my slutty one-offs and say, “I own the copyright on these masters and I want to sell them.” Seems like inert libs and their supporters wave the flag on “copyright control.” But how do you retain total control if your choice to sell exclusive is removed? Note: I worked with one inert model that had an “OK to buy” option but again…how could you repo that master if it’s in A-Z and beyond? I fear being the real publisher of these types of masters for these exact scenarios of potential ass-biting to be honest.
So, no, I don’t like it. I want people selling my stuff like they own it because they do. If you own music and want to re-purpose it please do. But why not re-cut it into expected TV format and sell it to a proper exclusive library with sales, search, and broadcast (back-end) clients? Refuse to re-cut because you “channelled” something or claim “it would just feel like murder”? You are a precious lazy b*****d. It’s a reject of some kind. That’s why it’s sitting on your drive. Slap some make-up on and make a :30. If you get frustrated because you cannot re-cut a through-composed orchestral film score, just think what a TV editor will say.
Regardless of what type of library model you love or hate, consider this: you still have to go away and make amazing tracks appear out of thin air every day. None of these arguments apply to composers that are unaware of their music’s failure to meet the creative and technical requirements to be broadcast in the 21st century.
Getting back to the subject at hand…
I’m glad the debate about re-titling is still a pretty hot topic. I was one of the first on this site to go into detail about why I did NOT prefer re-titling. I see the pros and cons, but I really hate the “long term” cons, as some have mentioned in earlier posts.
I think re-titling is just like anything else in this music industry. Unfortunately, you have to play the “game”, and be smart about it. I think you could take advantage of re-titling and have some success if you have a pretty large catalog of material to work with. I’m a songwriter and producer, so I’m thinking about looking into re-titling for maybe my instrumentals only, for example…and keep my songs (with lyrics) outside of re-titling..*shrugs* It’s just a thought.
Ultimately, I’m most interested in working with those that have a good reputation and overall keep things as fair as possible. There ARE some out there that re-title that seem to be very good at helping composers get placements.
Learn the “game”, and play it to the best of your ability….period.
I guess the only way is to experiment. Thanks.
Speaking of success probability, has anyone branched out into the other kind of business of self promotion thru Tunecore and Jango radio? I know on musician forums that band touring and promotion is the main forte. I’m wondering if there’s any feedback about non performing library musicians trying this out, and if there’s any likelihood of succeeding with radio friendly tunes. (whether the income from Tunecore distribution sales is more than the $15 or so dollars for a single plus the $30 for 1000 airplays on Jango). Anyone try this with catchy instrumentals?
Ive had some success – bigger than the outlay for sure 🙂 – using tunecore to put out e.p.’s , and its only NOW that theyre offering sattelite products like jango et al. But make no mistake; the competition out there for “pop” related product is now ULTRA FIERCE. If you want to sell something, you better get ready to spend 16 hours aday for a while, just talking about and getting others to talk about how great you are.
Marketing is KEY NUMBER ONE when it comes to music sales using i-tunes etc. To the point where ironically i know an artist who spends too much time – seriopusly- just going on and on about all her ventures in musicland, but it hasnt translated to sales yet. Even though shes spent 5 YEARS building up a multi faceted profiel using the web as a great marketing tool. All because the music has obviously not reflected all the P.R. and she hasnt made enough music per se to justify the publicity.
its swings and roundabouts Mike. You cant be all things to all people, all the time. Stick with the strengths and soldier on, in my book.
regards
S R DHAIN
JUICY AUDIO PRODUCTIONS
I may not quit completely, but I am taking a break. I have contacted a great deal of companies so far. Now I am just going to work with a solid five companies that I think would suit me best.
I am going through my songs and I am cleaning house. I am going to delete most of the songs I have and start over. I will also be getting some new equipment. I probably willl not be making anything new for a good 90 days or so. I have already deleted all but one of the songs on my soundclick page.
Thanks for the good words of encouragement.
And Yadgyu, don’t give up! I searched for your stuff and found a track on YouTube and it was pretty cool. Had a very unique sound. I will say it did sound like a low quality file. If you sent it to libraries like that maybe that’s why they didn’t accept it.
If it sounds good, it is good. -Duke Ellington
I’ve made my career following that motto and won’t ever flag from 100% believing it!
Amen to that!
…and I’m out. (wickity wick wack)
I think the normal listener donsn’t care whether it is a sample or an acoustic instrument. It’s only the people in the music business that gives a hoot.
I tend to agree with you John.
Very true. That even extends to synth based stuff. Someone asked me the other day “do you use an actual moog for bass?” 🙂
Man, it sounds tough for everyone here.
I love the style of prose – there’s even a warriors reference (“its our turf”) 🙂
Thanks for noticing…you are the first to call it out.
It’s cool chris, i hear what youre saying. I get the vibe and the flavour here, even though im in the UK.
Maybe its cause i spent 5 years trying to do all of it off my own back -ive had over 20 placements using that method and make no mistake, it was A REAL HARD SLOG – that i thought “ok, everyone is using libraries, so ill take a bit of a plunge”. I was (still am i think), part of a group on linked in that was all about libraries and licensing houses, and thats how i came to find out about this website and was probably one of the first ones here.
I had a few days of mind numbing accounts and paperwork , which i counterbalanced by trying to check out all the sites Art had then put up in the original list – the site itself has undergone a radical look revamp since then- and discovered a lot of libraries etc that id never have known about. This site is the dog’s nuts for many reasons; the primary one, being that it saves a lot of well meaning composers and producers shedloads of time in vetting the good and the bad. I myself have signed to two organisations since discovering this site. the others ive had good relaitonships with for years, but as youve pointed out Chris, they are indeed struggling.
My point is perhaps one of the middle ground. I can see Art’s point of view, cause not everyone can end up in hans zimmer’s, chris franke’s, and so on position, no matter how good they are, simply cause they may never get the chance to be “in the right place at the right time” (which believe me is a BIG part of it as well), as well as have that extra special je ne sais quois that is required. Its almost akin to winning the lottery. And yet ALL OF US (i believe) on this site, DO want the big gigs too. That means everyone soldier’s on, due to the LOVE of what they do. I actually heard some stuff from a few guys’ here on yooka, and i was moved (Emmett, your piano pieces are pure quality..top notch stuff 🙂 ), cause they quality IS there. Ill make the assumption that most here can deliver the goods AND THEN SOME MORE.
And yet Chris, you are right too. If we all feed the system constantly , then it’ll get harder and harder for ALL, because oversupply will reduce prices drastically. However, even im puzzled as to why so many music libraries hoarde so much music, if only say 10% of it (which drops to 1% in some cases) gets used per annum. Is the rationale “oh you never know…we might find the next great one amongst the hoardes” or is it “when we reach 50000 tracks, we’ll ameliorate/amalgamate/ sell to one of the big guys”? or maybe its both? …
To conclude, if anyone is to be culpable, its the guys saying “come on in…well take it!”, simply cause unless someone wants something, no one will sit and stockpile music forever… Or is it the happy, optimistic in all of us composers, who is to blame for this scenario?
So…which comes ( or goes) first…the chicken OR the egg?
Peace out
S R Dhain
Juicy Audio Productions
Respect…and I 2nd that this site is great.
Thanks very much – its great to hear from people that they like your music – especially from other composers! Had a listen to your tracks aswell on your website a while back – was very impressed by your production quality (something I lack lol 🙂 ) aswell as your compositional standards aswell.
I agree with all you said in your post – some interesting ideas about where the music licensing industry is going in terms of there being too much music available, and the amount keeps growing. I suppose a part of that is also “updating sounds”. By that, I mean instrumental tracks can always sound better – by using better samples, production techniques etc. which are still evolving. Granted, they are nearing life-like depths at this stage, but I think libraries with say 50k tracks, must be filled with at least 20% of tracks that are just unlicensible due to their “outdated” sounds.
I do know that some libraries pride themselves on having a small amount of tracks compared to some of those other 50k libraries. I wonder will this be the way libraries might move towards in the near future? Surely people can’t find the track they would like in a library so large?
It will be interesting to see how the whole industry does evolve – will it hit boiling point and if so, what will happen? Also – agree – awesome website Art 🙂 Also, very interesting to hear you have never got any offers from big libraries or $1000 per track offers etc. – I thought your music was very high quality Art.
Would be interesting to see exactly what kind of tracks do attract the attention of the “big” libraries and the offers of $1000 up front fee
Your sound is superb Emmett. Your stuff instantly stuck a chord with me, cause i know a lot of classically trained pianists ( i stopped after a year, which i occasionally regret), and theyre determined to play ANYTHING but melodic stuff, which is perhaps an indication of the decades theyve spent on music theory and so on, or theyre just so heavily into the avant-garde, that making anything too melodic is anaethma to them right now
.For example, I went to an audio accoustic night the other day, in a church,with multiple speakers carefully set up around the place and ALL the pianists made non-melodic tone poems. The non pianist made…music. It was absolutely freezing in there, which added another element I suppose.Coming back to your stuff, a lot of care and subtle nuances are present in your music and its a top notch sound man..im sure yooka are also more than happy that youre keeping it coming 🙂
Coming back to your quesiton, its not even necessarily the libraries, but more the CLIENT(S). It IS a client driven market after all, and hence a combination of the usual factors :-
* supply and demand
* the sales pitching
* the added value which is percieved or granted to the artist and the library(s) themselves.
* the spread and breadth of the artist
In all fairness, its the first three- especially the third one- which is the kicker when they decide to pay out 1000 plus for a piece of music.
In effect, this is why when yadgu (bless him) said something about starting his OWN library, then i remembered thinking the same thing many many moons ago. However, until ive made enough of a name for myself, it may be counter-productive for now. Also, the business aspects are tougher than ever out there, so you then have to wear multiple hats ALL THE TIME, cause the irony is youll be competing with everyone…including yourself , unless you can pull all the stuff from all the places its already sitting.
The times they are a changin’..and about time too ;-D
Thanks man – really appreciate it. Out of curiosity, would you think it was made with Reason? I know a lot of people think it was a real piano – which brings up a whole other question of “Do non-musicians/normal folk hear the difference between live music/samples?”
Anyway, yea interesting points there….the whole “wearing multiple” hats thing is where it can be very difficult for musicians and composers to do – especially seeing as how composing can take so much time up normally by itself. I suppose we’re destined to rely on music libraries in the end
I was convinced you’d used a high-end ROMPLER or VST piano to do the lot. If youve used reason, then you get double kudos for making it sound so crisp. 🙂
Ha thanks 🙂 If you use Reason 4.0 – just use “5 foot grand piano” I think – thats all I do – no effects or EQ lol 🙂 Suprisingly easy – I just go by the mantra discussed already – if it sounds great, then no need to change it.
Here’s the other (uncut) version of that article. It has some other interesting points.
http://circa70.org/versiontwo/?p=383
Hey Chris,
Will you be in LA anytime soon? We gotta hang man, that article is THE TRUTH!
NAB in April is the closest. Thanks for the love.
Hi Chris,
I read the article and have a few thoughts. I do hear a lot of anger in your article so this is obviously something that touches you deeply.
From my point of view, as a composer who has never been courted by the big libraries, never been offered $1000 per track and never had any major placements, I look at it a little differently. Maybe someday that will happen and I will continue to try and improve my skills to that end. In the meantime I have a few hundred cues and the only interest for that music is from re-titling (non-exclusive) libraries or small exclusive libraries that pay no upfront fee. So what do I do? I’m not interested in letting those cues sit on the shelf when I know there is a market for them and I know I can earn extra income. Not all re-titling libraries are the same. There are the Pump Audios of the world but there are many other (and better) choices. That’s the main reason I started Music Library Report.
I’ve only been at this end of the business for a few years and hopefully, in time, will make it to the better paying gigs and better placements. But, every composer, no matter how successful, started from square one. We are all looking to better ourselves, our skills and our lives. Some are further along the path than others.
Just my two pennies worth.
Art
P.S.
I also want to correct something you said in your article that many people don’t understand.
You said: “Think about that when BlueArrow or TuneSat spits out 10 titles for the same rejected demo.”
I don’t know about Bluearrow but Tunesat can only identify one title. When you open a Tunesat account you send them your music to be fingerprinted along with your title. When it detects usage it only refers to the title you gave to Tunesat. It does NOT recognize other titles.
Art-
First and foremost–you are reading the uncut freewrite on my blog. The published article doesn’t refer to TuneSat. I took it out for this and other reasons.
I’m sorry you think the article is angry but it really is not. The column is called Subconscious Headset…which is my vocabulary for ranting out loud to yourself. That article has been circulated all throughout the PMA and I’ve never gotten that reaction. I’m from NYC; the angry agitator is part of my brand and we are all in on the joke.
It’s an editorial. It’s supposed to be humorous and is aiming at a very specific type of music supervisor–inept ones. I realize people have different levels of career-dom. Look back ^^^ at me encouraging Yad not to quit music and he said my article was petty and pointless so believe me: I don’t knock anyone creating music ever. I’ve answered about 5 emails asking for demo critiques (you all know who you are) so it hurts me to think that I’m viewed as hating on composers or belittling their efforts. Am I just assuming that?
I’m disappointed you don’t feel the spirit of what I’m saying. The article is knocking the re-title practice first…not indie small libs. The article is a call to arms. I’m saying that we are the creators of this object called production music and don’t turn it out for an iffy quick buck with a re-title lib that is bound to fail somehow. Take your tracks, title them what you want, and create your own library. If you are bound do be doing your own admin with an INERT than do it for yourself and be proud. Some of the INERT libs just don’t know what they are doing so be careful. I’m also trying to guide people toward the truth of this: just because your track EXISTS doesn’t mean it will get placed on TV. It must be edit-friendly and function from the word go. And it must be sold and placed by motivated publishers. Motivated publishers are ones that OWN their music exclusively by paying for it. Please look at the plain business of it. Re-title libs = department stores of production music. Worse. Outlets.
Big time Truth right there from Chris :
“… just because your track EXISTS doesn’t mean it will get placed on TV. It must be edit-friendly and function from the word go. And it must be sold and placed by motivated publishers. Motivated publishers are ones that OWN their music exclusively by paying for it. Please look at the plain business of it. Re-title libs = department stores of production music. Worse. Outlets.”
I hope the right people take this to heart, seriously.
Hi Chris,
I understand that you are not knocking composers, per se and I get that the article is about re-titling libraries and the practice itself. I agree that many of those libraries are ineffectual at best (at least in my limited experience). But there are some that provide a legitimate output for those of us who have no place else to turn. Of course there is no “one size fits all”. A library that is successful for one person may not be for another.
You also mention about creating ones own library and I agree. For the last few months I have been working on creating a music licensing web site for our own music. It will all be done with open source software so the cost will be minimal. Once I have it developed I will share the process with everyone so they can do the same.
Anyway, Namaste (I just got back from Yoga, so L.A. LOL!)
I hope this doesn’t take away from the discussion. I noticed you said: “the only interest for that music is from re-titling (non-exclusive) libraries”
Do you mean that every non exclusive lib IS a re-titling? I thought that only some of them were! I’m trying to stay away from the retitling aspect, but I love the idea of non-exclusive. I thought non-exclusive was just non-exclusive and if somebody notices my music on another library, oh well that might have some disadvantages, but prob. wouldn’t happen with the same person who is searching for music.