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://www.bhgoldmusic.com/ | |
|---|---|---|
| Twitter: | ||
| Facebook: | ||
| Accepting Submissions: | Unknown - Contact at website. | |
| Submit Online: | Unknown | |
| Submit By Mail: | Unknown | |
| Submissions Reviewed: | Unknown | |
| Types Accepted: | Instrumentals | |
| Charge For Submissions: | Unknown | |
| Up Front Money: | ||
| Royalty Free: (non-broadcast use) |
Unknown | |
| Exclusivity: (Exclusive, Non, Semi) (Semi = Free to place on own but not with another library) |
Unknown | |
| Re-Title: | Unknown | |
| Set Own Price: | Yes | |
| Contract Length: | Unknown | |
| Payment Schedule: | Unknown | |
| License Fee Split: (writer/library) |
Unknown | |
| PRO Split Based on 100%: (writer/library writer/library/publisher or writer) |
Unknown | |
| Requires Licensee To File Cue Sheet: | Unknown | |
| Pays On Blanket License: | ||
| YouTube Content ID: | ||
| Active Site: | No | |
| Offers Subscriptions To Clients: | ||
| Notes: | ||
Seems like this site no longer exists.
Yep, seems long gone. Thanks for the update!
Wow…. DX7 Slap bass up front in all its glory. I thought that was banned under the Geneva convention.
🙂
No – it’s run by one Brent Holland – http://www.brenthollandmusic.com/. I also wondered that – Boosey tend to abbreviate their full name to B&H, hence the confusion.
Is this library associated with Boosey & Hawkes?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! No association whatsoever. They are seperated by several thousand light years in terms of quality.
Actually, I did make the mistake of popping over to B&H Gold and checking out some tunes. Truly awful. $11 is way too much (about $11 too much if you ask me). I have a load of Carlin library CDs from the early 80s and they are of similar quality but the Carlin ones are better.
And there I was thinking I’d never hear the DX7 slap bass ever again…
the prices these guys are charging for music is outrageous. they are charging $11-$14 per track. Libraries should not charge less than $100 per track and any libraries that charge this low are bringing the value down for all of us composers. Stay away from this company!
Is $11-$14 per track that bad?
$11 – $14? The price of a pizza.
It takes 15 minutes to make a pizza – and just about everybody knows how to make one. How long does it take to make your music tracks? Can everybody do it?
Well what can be done to change things?
I don’t know what options a hungry up-and-coming musician has. It seems that this site may be for rookies. More experienced composers would probably have enough clout and connections to get better deals or to work with different companies.
The pizza analogy doesn’t really work.
A pizza is made and consumed once.
Music is sold over and over again.
Not disagreeing with your statement, just the analogy.
Actually the pizza is cloned over and over again. The buyer continues to pay $11 -$14 for each new use – just like cheap music. Music is cloned for each new client from the mother WAV file.
“Actually the pizza is cloned over and over again.”
Actually, no, it is not.
Artistic license…
I’m sorry, I just stumbled across this, and I find it hilarious that the president of a legitimate music library spends his time arguing over the validity of a pizza analogy.
Let’s try this: Writing a song is like cleaning a toilet. It starts out with a bunch of crap, which you remove, and then you polish that bowl til its nice and shiny.
Your move.
The music library business is like plunging a toilet. You keep shoving stuff down the pipe until something gives.
This is brilliant! I only wish that it wasn’t so true.
Thank God for my day job,
–> S.
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSS $11-$14 is as bad as it gets. Soon they will be licensing music for $1 unless people stop giving away their music to companies like this. Always check to see what these companies are licensing your music for on their site. Anyones music is worth more than a pizza, I don’t care how bad you are. people need to wake up and figure out that companies like this are killing our industry!
I’m with you 100% on your concerns of the ever decreasing value of music.
However, have you actually listened to the music on this site? Most of it is so poorly produced (mostly MIDI – even the rock stuff) that $11 is probably asking too much.
It’s good to see you get what you pay for with some sites.
I think other sites that have much better music and still low ball are the biggest concern.
I think that the pricing should not discourage us from sending in music. I listened to what I heard and I was not impressed. The music sounds straight from the 80’s. I think that most composers here could give that site a serious update with fresh, new, original material.
Seriously ‘Anon’, you see no problem in encouraging a price war between music libraries, a ‘race to the bottom’?
Composers who are able to produce professional sounding music owe to themselves, and the industry that they participate in, to make sure their music sells for a fair price. Low prices makes the uploading process less worthwhile (lessens the value of your time), cheapens your ‘image’ and name, and contributes to a gradual decline in what video producers expect to pay for music.
What is a ‘fair price’ you might ask… well in my opinion, it’s making sure you don’t go below an industry average price. In the royalty free business, you really shouldn’t sell your music for less than $35 per 2 minute track. You should also try to avoid doing business with companies that give you less than 50%. If we give them an inch, sooner or later they’ll be taking a mile.
Just a common sense approach to making sure we aren’t shooting ourselves in the foot.
I understand. But how exactly do we stop libraries like this from selling music for so low? Even if composers stop sending in music, these libraries already have the catalog on hand and can sell music as they see fit.
I think that the music library industry is headed down the same dark path as the mainstream music industry. I am not sure that composers can do anything about it at this point, unless they start their own companies and compete for business.
Libraries need a constant flow of new material. Otherwise their clients will start to go elsewhere. If you’re not providing them with new music, eventually they’ll either have to change how they do business or fold.
Unlike with the mainstream music industry, we do have some control over this. There are a lot of good libraries out there selling at fair prices. Send them your music instead.
I agree. Why waste time fighting a library? There are other fish in the sea.
Well put.
Trying to determine the “correct” or “average” price in the music licensing business is a bit like determining the length of a piece of string though, isn’t it? A piece of music is only ever worth what someone is able and willing to pay for it, and the same track can sell for £2 to a film student or several thousand pounds to a medium – big budget film. Who’s to say the same film student who was grateful for the availability of quality music for his project won’t be the same director in years to come who remembers the music he used and decides to use it again?
Student films, even if made on a shoestring budget, have SOME money. Sure, I’ve personally written for many without a composer’s fee, the credit, experience and connections are often worth it. However, for them to have the convenience of immediately accessing the music they need, and to be able to slap it into their mix and be done with it, surely they can afford $35! It’s less than pizza for the crew, just a little more than coffee for the editor, director and sound mixer. A lot less than just one day of the film degree they (or their parents) are paying for.
retitling has nothing to do with royalty free music. royalty free music the client pays a one time fee and can use the music forever for as many projects as they want in a non broadcast format. retitling is only used for broadcast situation where the title is changed to separate the royalty streams. In my opinion this is a good thing. royalty free is the worst thing that every happened to composers.
Royalty free could be more accurately described as one of the worst things to happen to major music libraries, who usually buy out composers for significant upfront fees. Indirectly this is bad for composers, especially those that make a living from the upfront fees.
I’m a composer who makes a decent living from performance royalties, yet I also enjoy a significant income from royalty free sales. I actually prefer the royalty free model, because I know I’m getting my fair share… with performance royalties there’s so much money unaccounted for, so much to chase up on.
Thanks for posting your views here Matt. Many of the composers we represent (you might one of them, I don’t know) feel the same way and like the reliable-ness of their ‘royalty free’ paycheck
no “in” here, either. you can try contacting them as a composer, if you wish. Bear in mind, that if theyre selling roalty free music, then retitling or similar may be part of the equation