johnnyblotter

Shoot, I haven't been here in a long time. I have to set this up to email me when new posts come...really sorry about not responding to this. Prometheus - I'm not looking for specific styles, per se. The real criteria is if I like it, if it has intention, etc. What I'm trying to avoid are the kind of cookie-cutter tracks found in most music "libraries". The best thing you could do is send a sample of something, just IM me, or send an mp3 to jontakiff@yahoo.com. Donna, it would be great if you would do that, in fact I'd really appreciate it. For you guys or anyone else, my website is about 80% finished, but all the terms and basic info is there. It's missing the nifty media player that will showcase the work of the artists, + a bio, etc. Have a look, and ignore the ugliness, it's getting dealt with. www.nickcorey.com/rally Thanks, look forward to hearing back. -Jon

Yes, but that's the whole crux of my idea...if someone needs to reserve the right to clear, their tracks aren't getting sent to the production people only to those outlets who are accustomed to dealing with those kinds of clearance issues. Conversely, if the artist pre-clears tracks, they can get used anywhere. Do you think giving the artists the right to reserve clearance will be appealing? Would it appeal to you? Or do you think no one cares? In my experience (though I would like more feedback ) responses to this issue vary across the board...hence my business model.

Thanks, Lazz, I appreciate that. I think I'm starting to realize that just because no one is doing it my way, doesn't mean it can't be done. Although everyone keeps saying that my idea about artists witholding the right to clear a proposed use is stupid and will make it more difficult to make money, somehow I think it will make the company more attractive to artists, which will make the music better, which will make the service more attractive. We'll see. Any songwriters feel like chiming in on this?

Hi Lazz, Thanks for your thoughts. First of all, there are in fact publishing administrators who also push catalogue. One huge example in the production audio world is Pump Audio. (www.pumpaudio.com). Another huge example in the "real world" (I'm simply using this term for lack of a better one) is Bug Music in Los Angeles. (www.bugmusic.com). Neither organization participates in any claim on the ownership of their clients' work, yet both base at least some of their business on making placements. In Pump Audio's case, their entire business is placements. For Bug Music, it's a combination of placements and collecting mechanical royalties. Neither organization charges any upfront fee. The difference is the payout...Pump Audio takes half of everything they earn for all of that marketing and promotion. Here's my take on things. Licensing companies such as Bug Music and Bank Robber Music (bankrobbermusic.com) are generally dealing with signed artists, and bigger clients. (Big advertisers, hit tv shows, etc.) They both allow the artist the right to refuse the offer. This doesn't impede their ability to do business, because their clients aren't requesting library music...they are requesting a specific song for a specific project, and therefore have time to sort through the details. On the other hand, music library users need to know the music they are using is pre-cleared and accessible...they don't have time to sit around. My business model basically rolls both these concepts into one. I think I have some material that is good enough for film, a hit tv show...and other material which may be good, but more suited to a music library. I'm simply leaving it up to the artist because some artists, especially ones that are a bit farther along and/or exceptionally talented/sensitive/whatever, want that level of control. If, for example, an artist insists on maintaining that control but their material isn't good enough to be marketed to the "big time" media outlets, then I wouldn't accept their material, because I'd feel there is nothing I can do with it. Then I'm just dividing things up into pre-cleared music and non-cleared music. Non-cleared music gets sent to the bigger productions, and is negotiated in the standard way, while pre-cleared music goes out on a searchable hard drive to tv producers, indie filmakers, etc. Anyway, why am I on the internet? Couple o' reasons. I geniunely would like feedback on this concept, because I think there is something unique about it that will either make or break it. As far as looking for talent, there are a ton of music licensing/library/non-library services that invite submissions from artists. In fact most of them do. I'm going to need to grow my catalogue, and ask yourself...do most advertisers/producers these days want :30 second lite jazz nuggets created by seasoned pros, or do they want music that will appeal to the younger generation? The nature of this industry is changing, lots of creative stuff going on. These guys pretty much floored me with their approach...www.indiemint.com although it seems pretty risky. Anyway, I'm getting off topic. The point - two separate services, the library service and the, let's say, higher profile service under one roof. And I need more good music.

sure, sounds good.

Hi Lazz, thanks for responding. What I meant, I suppose, was that I was looking for feedback generally on the concept and it's appeal from the artists' point of view (rather than a discussion of funding, staff, short and long term plans, etc.) Specifically I'm looking to find out whether the right to reserve clearance for tracks was something that would actually appeal to artists. From a moral perspective it appeals to me, because having been in many bands, I understand the sensitivity to these things. However from an organizational/accounting/legal point of view it certainly complicates things. Add to the mix the fact that even the so-called hippest bands do not hesitate to place music in commercials these days. But well-known licensing companies will usually give the band the right to refuse or allow clearance, and I feel like allowing this right will help me attract higher caliber artists. I'd rather not position this as strictly a library service because most library services have weak music and I think it will turn people off. I'd like the library service to just be one component. And I can't really start that part of the business without more tracks...I have about 200 or so, and have sent out hard drives, but there isn't enough choice there although I've definitely gotten postive feedback. Anyway the more feedback the better. I have another month at least until I put up a website, start really building the library/service and begin contacting clients/potential clients. Again thanks for the responses.

Hey thanks for the responses. Much appreciated. While I agree that the idea isn't totally original, it does have some unique aspects, as far as artists being able to place restrictions on their tracks up front. And there is definitely no cost to join. Also, I think I have some fantastic stuff so far. As far as industry contacts, I won't say they're vast, but enough (I think) to get moving. It works out to a handful of cable tv producers, some corporate video people, a few documentary filmakers, a doc. film company, a big post guy for MTV/Comedy, a good friend working for a Warner company on the Warner lot in L.A., and producer at Warner Independent films. So I consider that a decent base - obviously I'm going to need to be on the phone hustling once it gets started. I don't really know anyone in advertising (yet). John, I'd like to know what you consider "best practices". Thanks! -Jon

Hello all, I have been patiently developing an idea over the past year, and I'd like to get some feedback on it, as far as...would it be useful to you as a service? Are there better alternatives from your standpoint? Any comments are greatly appreciated. Over the past year I've had the chance to do some composition work for cable tv stations, internet producers and a few small independent films. During these experiences I found that some of my friends' work was better suited to the visual image than anything I could create. I contacted an entertainment lawyer, and learned how to properly license their works to these outlets. (Of course I got their permission first). I looked at the body of work that I had personally created in addition to my friends' work, and realized I had a nice library of music. Thinking I might have something interesting cooking, I started looking at all the music libraries/music licensing services on the internet (Pump Audio, Killer Tracks, Magnatune, etc)...and I noticed that all this so-called "production music" was uniformly bland and boring. Then I looked at more established publishing administration companies such as Ocean Way and Bug Music. Great companies, great music, but you really need to be selling records and on a label to have a chance with them. I'm trying to cater to a third group of artists - artists whose music is far superior to your typical music library, but for one reason or another are not signed, on tour, whatever. The artists I am working with are so good it makes me cry, but one of them is 41 years old and without a band, the other is busy doing other things...etc. Here's one of the main issues - I'm trying arrange the actual artist agreement to fit between what a library service would offer and what a major administrator would offer. What I mean by that - I want to offer three choices to artists. 1) To have their tracks "pre-cleared" and sent out and made available, via a hard drive, to producers/supervisors in all mediums...tv, internet, film, video games, commercials. 2) Let artists place "restrictions" on certain uses. For example, if the artist did not want their music to be in commercials, they could "restrict" that use. Their music would then not be included on the hard drive sent to advertisers. 3) Allow the artist to reserve the right to clear any and all proposed uses of the track. This is what an artist of some stature would get at a big company. If the artist wanted to reserve the right to clear uses, the music would never get sent out on a hard drive, and would be kept in-house for requests, or sent on CD's only to bigger productions where clearing the track is part of the typical procedure. Obviously "pre-cleared" tracks have a higher chance of getting used, and fully restricted tracks would have to be of a superior quality for me to accept, since the market for those placements is highly competetive. Finally, the goal is to create a superior library, and move from where we are (cable tv, indie films, internet) to bigger indie films, commercials, etc. Also the agreement is non-exclusive, all proceeds from placements split 50/50. Questions or comments are hugely appreciated.

How is everyone? Just joined, I'm from Hartford, CT, originally a drummer, also have produced a lot of music in different genres. I'm here for a different reason than most. I am in the process of starting a small music licensing company. I came to this idea when I was composing for an indie filmaker friend, and also some cable TV channels. I started placing my friends' works in the productions - now I'm trying to turn it into a proper business. However I'm pulling my hair out (what's left of it) about a number of issues concerning how I structure things with songwriters. I'm hoping some of you can give me feedback + opinions, what would appeal to you, what wouldn't, etc. I'll be posting in the business forum so any comments are greatly appreciated! thanks -Jon