Home » R.I.P. (Graveyard) » 909 Music

909 Music

No votes yet.
Please wait...

If you are a composer and/or songwriter, please leave your comments and experiences with this company. We want to hear the good as well as the bad! Please rate, from 1 to 10, by clicking on one of the stars. Below is some general information but we make no guarantee of accuracy. Check with the company for all details. Please contact us for any corrections.
URL: http://909music.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/909music
Facebook:
Accepting Submissions: Yes
Submit Online: No
Submit By Mail: Yes
Submissions Reviewed: Yes
Types Accepted:
  • Vocals
  • Instrumentals
  • Loops
  • SFX
  • Ringtones
Charge For Submissions: No
Up Front Money: No
Royalty Free:
(non-broadcast use)		 Yes
Exclusivity:
(Exclusive, Non, Semi)
(Semi = Free to place on own
but not with another library)		 Non-Exclusive
Re-Title: No
Set Own Price: Some (see notes)
Contract Length: Variable
Payment Schedule: Immediate
License Fee Split:
(writer/library)		 50/50
PRO Split Based on 100%:
(writer/library
writer/library/publisher
or writer)		 50/50
Requires Licensee To File Cue Sheet: No
Pays On Blanket License:
YouTube Content ID: No
Active Site: No
Offers Subscriptions To Clients:
Notes:

We are just looking for all sorts of great music. Vocal, Intrumental, Filmscores, All types of Electronica, Sound Design, Textures, Jingles, Ambient.

There is a license button, once an enquiry comes through we ask the composer for their price.

167 thoughts on “909 Music”

  1. Has anyone had any success using their marketplace here? Great idea , I wish other libraries, particularly ones that also sell video, would sit up and take notice. Some offers are good, some more then that, some laughable but you don’t have to pitch to them. Anyone get sales pitching directly to media makers ere?

    • Yes, I’ve had 3 sales so far thanks to the marketplace (but I sold all of them to the same buyer, although for different uses). I think I’ve pitched 6 or 7 – I got a reply from all the potential buyers but one. Overall, I think it’s a very good idea. I’m actually surprised that other RF libraries don’t do this (that I know of). Excellent job by 909.

      On the other side, I am a little bit concerned that 909 does not watermark the tracks. We all read about the music thiefs, even in this forum … so, that concerns me quite a bit. Arnav, do you plan on implementing some watermark system in the future for 909?

      • Hey GM thanks for the compliment on the Marketplace. Congrats on your sales, expect much more as our traffic increases gradually.

        On many occasions I have encountered digital thieves in person but let me mention an individual that comes to mind who stands out from them all.

        “The music on your website is so expensive, why would I buy from you?” he said to me contemptuously.

        “An average track selling for $30 for unlimited usage is expensive?” I asked politely, “I can’t remember a time when media music was so affordable”

        “Yeah dude, but why would I spend money on your site when I can download and use music for free on Audiojungle?” he said with utmost condescension

        “What do you mean you can download music for free on Audio Jungle?” I was curious.

        In a tone displaying lack of guilt, he went on to explain to me how he would download free previews of “watermarked” tracks, then edit the tracks to evade the watermark creating a new sample, and then loop that sample to be used in his videos.

        “This” he said, “is how I get my tracks for free.” Obviously I had nothing else to say to him and we ended our call.

        My point is, if someone is desperate and determined to get your music for free, he will. With or without watermarks. That’s why we don’t give free previews and we terminated our subscription plans too. (subscriptions allowed users to download watermarked tracks)

        We also have too many codec securities in place where individuals CANNOT rip our tracks off by pasting links in sites such as streampocket.

        There is a very very small percentage of people who would record playback. We focus on providing top customer satisfaction to the majority of video producers who use fair means to download and buy music.

        • Arnav,
          I agree with you. Indeed, I wasn’t really thinking about end users willing to steal music instead of buying it – I think those are probably very few (and I assume that professionals don’t do that of course), and as you said they do it anyway – however, I also think that the “technique” to eliminate watermarks may be much easier for some kinds of music (repetitive, looped etc) than other styles and genres. Nonetheless, I was actually thinking about people stealing music for re-selling it as their own. We have discussed some cases even in this forum. I know it’s an actual concern of other big libraries (P5 for example, PT etc). That’s a bit concerning to me too. I still don’t think (hope …) there’s many people like that, but the damage is much bigger (than the occasional little amateur thief of one single track or two). Someone like that could quickly and easily steal hundreds or thousands of tracks, if these are not watermarked, with big damage for both the producers and the libraries. And it’s not so easy to find them. As I said, we already found some cases, and I suspect that many more get unnoticed. Watermarking at the very least would make things much more difficult and time consuming for them (or even impossible with some genres of music). So, that’s the reason of my concern, not the occasional little thief. Maybe I’m paranoid 🙂 but, I guess there must be a good reason why the vast majority of libraries watermark their tracks. I don’t know, I could be dead wrong, just my two cents. Hope you may want to reconsider this in the future. Keep up the good work!

          • Arnav
            just an idea: maybe you could allow the composer to choose whether to upload watermarked tracks or not. I know of one library that allowed me to do that. So, I would upload 2 tracks, one watermarked (which is the play preview on website) and one not watermarked, which would be received by the customer after he purchase it. Maybe this would be easier for you to implement than an automatic watermarking system? Just an idea …
            By the way, thank you for taking the time to respond to us in this forum.

        • “In a tone displaying lack of guilt, he went on to explain to me how he would download free previews of “watermarked” tracks, then edit the tracks to evade the watermark creating a new sample, and then loop that sample to be used in his videos.”

          What a total loser, who would probably freak out if someone stole his little videos!

  2. Hello ,I was wondering how to interpret this part of 909 agreement -909 Music may modify this Agreement periodically and without notice. If you continue to use the 909 Music – Music Monetization, this signifies your acceptance of any amendments to this Agreement.
    Just curious ,thanks

      • Thank you for response, by the way nice site and simple uploading process. I’m just more careful what I sign these days and some legal language might seam a bit confusing to simple me ,as it says any amendments.

        I thought when you sign something you sign what you read in that moment and not sign something that might be changed in future ,be it favorable or disfavorable for the contributor, now we have the word from you being the good guys and that’s great but is that enough

        Couldn’t it be more appropriate to send notification to composers to resign the agreement when changes are made or at least make oneself obliged to notifiy by mail of changes made ?

        • Most of the contracts I’ve received have a clause stating that you agree to any future modifications of the document without further written consent. I think that is an untested legal area. Someone on this site made the comment that a contract could be modified to… “And we own your house.” I’m pretty sure a court would not approve.

          • “Consent” and “Notice” are two different, but very important, legal concepts. Even credit card companies notify you of changes to your agreement.

            As long as you have “Notice” of changes and the option to terminate your agreement that’s generally cool. It would not be cool for a library to change the terms of a contract AND force you to stay in the library.

            Arnav can confirm, but I think composers are free to withdraw from 909. So, you have that option in the event that any changes are not agreeable to you.

            “I think that is an untested legal area.”
            I’m sure that it has been tested and that there are limits and exceptions.

            Note: Contract law varies by jurisdiction. Thre should be a clause in the contract stating whose laws govern.

            • “909 Music may modify this Agreement periodically and without notice. If you continue to use the 909 Music – Music Monetization, this signifies your acceptance of any amendments to this Agreement.”

              Yes. No notice is required but I’ve seen that a lot. The burden is on us to be up-to-date on any changes in the agreement. The laws of India & The UAE govern the agreement.

              I’m not a lawyer but I’ve read a lot of contracts. In our business, they tend to have similarities. I study a contract closely but I also try to factor-in my perception of the people behind the contract. If I feel uncomfortable, I bail-out. If all else fails, I have dinner every Tuesday with a pair of lawyers.

      • Forget the Paypal fees. This is posted on their FB page:

        “125 Royalty-Free tracks for just $147! – Unlimited use for Corporate videos, Commercials, YouTube Videos etc.”

        This is what you’re competing against — within the library!

        • Wow.
          I see it’s still on facebook, but I can’t see it on the website. Maybe the offer is over? Anyway, I hope Arnav of 909 Music, who seems to be a nice, open guy, will explain that. I like 909 Music, but an offer like that is really a disgrace for music producers, if true. Arnav, can you please comment?

          • GM maybe before you use certain words such as. “..a disgrace for music producers” you should personally look into what the true facts are.

            What MichaelL is referring to is the packs on the website, which have been online for over a year. You can find them here: https://www.909music.com/packs

            over 90% of the tracks in those packs are mine. Few are by others. So don’t worry it is not a “disgrace” to any composer(s) on 909 Music.

            Packs are a great way to get filmmakers to sign up on the website. We then send regular emails to registered filmmakers to introduce composers and sell tracks in the library. Filmmaker’s need new tracks almost every month, buying 1 pack doesn’t solve their needs forever.

            Leveraging my tracks to get more filmmakers on the website so every composer can benefit seems like a good idea to me. It is also a good entry point for Filmmakers to start working with us. (Although, less than 5% of the filmmakers on 909 Music buy packs. They all buy individual tracks!!)

            Michael Levanios is not part of 909 Music yet he comes here and attacks us regularly. Michael attacked us in the past, we gave him an explanation and he apologized that he commented without reading the details. Then he sent us an email saying he wanted to join the site and loved the site. On my post introducing filmmaker accounts he said it was an “excellent idea”. He has still never joined 909 Music, but still continues to follow this thread and still make negative remarks “without parsing the details”

            Michael Levanios would you like to explain yourself?

            -Arnav

            • “Michael Levanios would you like to explain yourself?” Sure Arnav.

              I’m not attacking your site. I think it’s a very good site and you’re making all the right moves, which is very important. You’re targeting the right consumer IMO — filmmakers, which is also very important. (But I’d say that –coming from a film background)

              I appreciate your willingness to “sacrifice” your own tracks to attract business. But, I was concerned, when I saw that low pricing because any composer signing to 909 would have to compete with those prices, even if they are just your tracks in sound packs. But, your explanation makes sense.

              Deducting the Paypal charges is not common practice, under most circumstances, but something composers can live with if the sales volume is good.

              The ONLY, and I emphasize ONLY, reason that I haven’t signed up with 909 is the lack of time. But, that will eventually change.

              BTW –it’s pretty common on the MLR to raise questions about different library practices and policies, especially new libraries. It doesn’t mean that you’re being attacked.

              Thanks for clarifying. I wish you continued success.

              _Michael

              • Hi Michael, thank you for your reply.

                I fully encourage raising questions as that gives other composers more clarity. But when you start your message by saying “Forget the PayPal fees, look at this.. etc etc.” you come across as very hostile. A better approach would have been to ask me what the strategy behind these bulk tracks for low price is. With that approach I wouldn’t have felt like you were attacking 909.

                As far as PayPal fees is concerned – Any business entity that pays its creditors their rightful percentage, pays them from the net amount. This is common business practice world over.

                When you send money from one account to another, there are always transaction charges. if we were to send you money to your bank account, there would be HIGHER charges due to international bank transfers and secondly banks charge a very high commission for currency exchange. I don’t believe there is ANY company/library that bears bank transfer fees and currency exchange commissions.

                I hope to see your music on 909 someday soon, Michael.

                -Arnav

            • Arnav
              sorry for using the word “disgrace”, it was too strong, I admit it. Sorry.
              However, I still believe that trying to attract customers by giving away music for free (or very close to free) is not .. “pretty” marketing, for music producers and the business in general.
              It doesn’t really matter if the tracks are yours or not. Not at all. As Michael said, it’s about competition. How can we compete against free or close to free music? What kind of “culture” are we spreading among potential customers, if we push the idea that production music (especially high quality music, such as yours) is free or close to free?
              In this forum most music producers have a very bad opinion of libraries that offer super-cheap music, and for good reason. We talk about it all the time. So, my negative comment and Michael’s concern are nothing new. You’ll find dozens of similar comments here, about “certain” libraries. The race to the bottom that those libraries (not you) created and keep sustaining is actually a “disgrace” for this business – and now I really mean it: a true “disgrace”.
              Again, this is not about 909. In fact, I like 909, very much. And I think you are doing a great job, seriously. You are in an excellent position for making 909 very successful based on many factors: quality of music, quality of website, initiatives such as the “Marketplace”, social media, and others. 909, in many respect, is actually building something new and different. So, keep up the good work, I really wish you well. But I really hope you are not planning on keeping up that kind of dirt-cheap offer for a long time, because that will not only go against music producers, but also – I think – against libraries. It may make sense at the beginning, when, as a start-up, you need to get noticed by customers. That makes (some) sense. I’m not sure, I’m no marketing expert, but I guess it may make some sense. But in the long term, I think, these are lose-lose situations, not win-win.
              Just my humble opinion of course.
              Good luck, and keep up the good work at 909.
              GM

              • Thank you for your reply GM

                I do encourage raising questions and doubts. Although, a little sensitivity on a public forum would be greatly appreciated in terms of choice of words.

                Secondly, you are NOT competing against “free music”. We give 3 free tracks to filmmakers who join the website. Do you believe that 3 tracks is all a filmmaker needs for the rest of his life? After filmmakers sign up, it’s easier to sell your music to them isn’t it?

                Those free tracks that you consider competition, in my opinion are support systems, One of the few we have. We also provide free knowledge and information to filmmakers on our blog: http://www.909music.com/blog

                If somebody gave you a perfume for free, and you really liked it, you are most likely to BUY that perfume in the future right? I don’t think that free perfume would last you for the rest of your life. Similarly, those free tracks won’t last that filmmaker more than 2 small videos. But they are most likely to buy from US again. Which means our composers will make more sales.

                Above all, I am very glad that you like 909 Music, It genuinely brings a smile to my face to know that composers like this site. Let’s not forget, I am a composer myself: http://www.909music/arnav/tracks

                • Hey Arnav
                  thank you for your kind answer.
                  Just to be precise: I was not referring to the 3 free tracks, but to the 125 tracks that you offer for 147 dollars. That’s about 1 dollar per track. That’s very, very close to “free”. 125 tracks is not 3. It’s a lot of tracks. Sure, film makers will need more than that, eventually. But – again – that’s a lot of tracks that you offer for almost free.
                  Your marketing strategy is clear, and I hope it will succeed. As I said, I like 909 a lot, but I don’t like at all this kind of marketing. I have a feeling that most people here would agree with me (I could be wrong of course). That’s all I have to say. Maybe I’m totally wrong, I dont know. But …. think about it for a second: what would happen if ALL music producers would offer 125 of their tracks for close to nothing? Have you considered this? What would happen if we ALL (!!!) used your marketing strategy?
                  I have a feeling that there would be no market left. Bye bye. Music almost free for all. Yay!! What would be the word for describe such a situation? Not disgrace? I don’t know, you choose the word.
                  To me, any initiative that goes into that direction is “bad”. Any initiative that goes into the opposite direction is “good”. It’s that simple.
                  Anyway, thank goodness most music producers an libraries don’t do that. Not yet.
                  Again, thank you for your reply and good luck.
                  GM

  8. Since we’re talking about 909, i figured i’ll ask people’s opinions on this. I had a sale recently on 909 for a $30 track. A paypal transaction fee was deducted from both my 50% share and the libraries 50% share, so i ended up with $14.26. Once that money was sent to my paypal account i was charged ANOTHER paypal transaction fee. So instead of $15, i walked away with $13.26. Maybe this is normal, but none of the other RF libraries I submit to deduct fees like this. It’s a bit frustrating. I’d be interested to hear what people’s opinions are.

      • Yeah, that wouldn’t fly if accurate. Especially having to pay transaction fees on the libraries share. I would have a problem with that. I don’t want to jump to conclusions though so hopefully 909 can clear that up here.

        • Yes that’s right. We pay 50% of the net amount (i.e after PayPal fees) and any transaction charges are borne by the composer. That is probably not the case with other libraries, but then again, there are not very many libraries that pay out 50% while freely allowing composers to trade music non-exclusively

          • Sorry to use abbreviations but ML, P5, and PT have a 50/50 split, or better, and do not subtract any Paypal fees or transaction charges. AS, does not subtract Paypal fees or transaction charges, but their split is not 50/50. Those four libraries would be your most similar non-exclusive RF competition. I can’t speak to low-end RF libraries like RFsh and AJ.

            This reminds me of the old record business model when the artist’s cut was a percentage of the net, not the gross, so it’s not really 50/50….more like 55/45, or less, depending on all of the “charges.”

          • “That is probably not the case with other libraries, but then again, there are not very many libraries that pay out 50% while freely allowing composers to trade music non-exclusively”

            Shameful.

            The composer should not have to pay any extra fees. Everything should be 50/50. That makes the most sense for all parties.

  9. After reading the thread and thinking about it, I decided to give 909 a try.I’m impressed by their attitude and willingness to come here and directly address issues and field questions from composers.What really sold me though is their ongoing effort to improve what they’re doing.
    Support was good and fast.I had a couple of issues getting set up and needed some clarification. They responded quickly and with clear details each time.One of my issues was I didn’t price a track but couldn’t see any edit or trash buttons to make changes.They suggested I change my screen resolution which I hadn’t thought of but they were right.Nice simple uploading process and the more tracks I accumulate, the more I appreciate that.
    Anyway,I’ve gotten real selective in choosing new libraries but I feel pretty good about this one at least on first impression. I obviously can’t speak about sales yet but I like what I’ve seen so far with these guys.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

X

Forgot Password?

Join Us