# Looking for writers/producers. All styles!



## Epidemic Sound (Feb 2, 2010)

Hi!
My name is Peer.
I am a music producer and the co-founder of a brand new exciting music company.
We, the company Epidemic Sound, are looking for talented American writers/producers.

All styles!
If you´re good at Rock, then that's what you should do!
If you're good at Folk music, then that's what you should do!
The same goes for Punk, Film, Pop, Funk, Country etc etc....
The music is so called production music, used in TV, on the web and so on.
So mainly instrumental music.

We have created a business model that will allow you to make a good living from your music!
As of today this model will only fit with non PRO members, but we will be launching a PRO member version later.
(PRO=Perfoming Rights Organization i.e Ascap,Bmi, Sesac,Stim etc.)
So if you can write and produce a song, by yourself, with a professional result, then this might be something for you!

Check our site: epidemicsound.com

Please email us at [email protected] for more info on how you can be a partòŠý   Â¸AŠý   Â¸BŠý   Â¸CŠý   Â¸DŠý   Â¸EŠý   Â¸FŠý   Â¸GŠý   Â¸HŠý   Â¸IŠý   Â¸


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Feb 2, 2010)

Two producers in Sweden that sold 60mil albums with Madonna, Josh Groban, etc.

Who are you guys?


----------



## gsilbers (Feb 2, 2010)

Nathan Allen Pinard @ Tue Feb 02 said:


> Two producers in Sweden that sold 60mil albums with Madonna, Josh Groban, etc.
> 
> Who are you guys?



what? sentence fragment!? :(


----------



## bryla (Feb 2, 2010)

Well Kristian Lundin works with the mentioned, also Max Martin and Denniz Pop are swedish. Maybe Peer is Peer Aldeheim?


----------



## lux (Feb 2, 2010)

i guess Peer Astrom

http://www.artistdirect.com/artist/peer-astrom/2672812

he has a very nice credits list.


----------



## bryla (Feb 2, 2010)

Damn those Swedes


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Feb 2, 2010)

Reason why I was asking that is because a lot of people attempting to make it in the business tend to lie. I know several song writers that say they are double platinum artists, but never were.

Anyone doing this? Because they aren't accepting PRO members. I figured most of us are.


----------



## Brobdingnagian (Feb 2, 2010)

"As of today this model will only fit with non PRO members, but we will be launching a PRO member version later. "

Is it me, or do I see a red flag........

Talk about walking into a den of wolves.......


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Feb 2, 2010)

Brobdingnagian @ Tue Feb 02 said:


> "As of today this model will only fit with non PRO members, but we will be launching a PRO member version later. "
> 
> Is it me, or do I see a red flag........
> 
> Talk about walking into a den of wolves.......



Well what they are saying is all the music will be royalty free, and later they probably will have ones with royalties.

But NOT accepting PRO members period? Odd to me.


----------



## mf (Feb 2, 2010)

It's called outsourcing.


----------



## Ian Dorsch (Feb 3, 2010)

Yeah. I mean it sounds interesting, but it's got to be a pretty small percentage of forum goers here who aren't members of a PRO.


----------



## Polarity (Feb 3, 2010)

Epidemic Sound @ Tue 02 Feb said:


> Hi!
> We, the company Epidemic Sound, are looking for talented American writers/producers.



If they are from Sweden, why looking only for Americans?!

Many others here are European, like me.


----------



## Herman Witkam (Feb 3, 2010)

Ingmar Bergman street. That's an awesome street name :D


----------



## Epidemic Sound (Feb 3, 2010)

Hi Guys!

Peer from Epidemic Sound here.

Thanks for Your interest in this!


The idea behind the company started as we saw many of our producer/songwriter friends couldn´t make a living doing music anymore. 
And because of that, getting "normal" jobs.
Nothing wrong with that.
But they wanted to do music!
But they were also tired of pitching songs, hassling A&Rs, writing 10 songs just to find out that maybe one made it.
To an album that sold.... Well not that great.
Same on the film-side.
Budgets getting cut.
Companies don´t want to take a chance with anybody.

Out of that we created a business model where we wanted to make sure you could make a good living out of Your music.

So this is definitely not for everybody.
If You are already making great money from Your music, this might not be for you.
But there are a lot of people out there that haven't gotten to that point yet.
The guys that work hard here with us are really making a good living from it.
Not private jets and the Riviera, but a good living.

If You're good, there will also be opportunities to do vignettes.
That will be separate deals and more money to be made.
Since we have a huge network of clients,and rapidly expanding, the possibilities are endless.

The reason for the non PRO's is simply legal.
It's a little easier for us.
There are a lot of legal work behind this company's idea.
And every country is different.
So we haven't got the full legal investigation done on the PRO side for the US yet.
But we are working hard on it.


So I hope this explains a little better what we do.


Best Regards
Peer Astrom


----------



## Polarity (Feb 3, 2010)

But what if one has tracks not registered with the PRO he his affiliated with?


----------



## Epidemic Sound (Feb 3, 2010)

Yes that's what we are working on, on the legal side.
Should be possible, but we haven't turned it inside out yet.
Will have it sorted out soon i hope!

Peer


----------



## germancomponist (Feb 3, 2010)

Sorry, 

but to me this sounds like all the other companies who want to sell music for less money than a PRO will earn. I don`t like this direction. Same what happens with other jobs. 

Who are your customers? These, your customers / those companies want to pay for music less money than it is now customary. Yes, no? And where we are in 10 years then?

Maybe you better advertise at the forums at "Magix-Music-Maker". If you want to get good music, then please, pay the musicians as well!

My 2 cents about this modern trend.... .


----------



## snowleopard (Feb 4, 2010)

> Ingmar Bergman street. That's an awesome street name



Is it next to Sven Nykvist way? Now _that_ would be really cool. 

8)


----------



## midphase (Feb 4, 2010)

"So I hope this explains a little better what we do."

Hmmm....not really. With all due respect, your entire message was as ambiguous as the English language will permit one to be.


----------



## mf (Feb 4, 2010)

Big +1 here. I was about to say that almost word for word.

A few basic questions:
1. Will the songs be registered with a PRO?
2. On whose name? The Songwriter's?
3. If so, then the Songwriter will become affiliated with that PRO, which you say you want to avoid. So you'll probably try to register his songs on another person's (company's) name. On whose?
3b. Who will collect the writer's share of royalties for the Songwriter's songs?
4. Will the Songwriter get his writer's share in full? What kind of agreement would make that possible? 
5. How will you legally justify your requirement that the Songwriter shouldn't register his own songs with a PRO?

To the point please.


----------



## Brobdingnagian (Feb 4, 2010)

"but to me this sounds like all the other companies who want to sell music for less money than a PRO will earn..."

Ah. So direct licensing. Great. Long term this is just what we want media companies to get used to. Then we will all be working for a cheese sandwich and a few pence.

Wonder what the split will be.........

It has already started. The downward spiral. PRO's know this and are probably more than a little concerned.


----------



## Brobdingnagian (Feb 4, 2010)

Good times are coming. Save your royalty money now, because where we'll be in a decade PRO-wise might be a little scary.


----------



## Epidemic Sound (Feb 5, 2010)

mf @ Thu Feb 04 said:


> Big +1 here. I was about to say that almost word for word.
> 
> A few basic questions:
> 1. Will the songs be registered with a PRO?
> ...




Hi.

1. No

2. -

3. -

4. No. It doesn't work that way in this case.
This is a full buyout of all the economical rights for the song.

5. Well it's either or.
Either You are affiliated with a PRO, then, at this time, we can't do business together.
Or You are not, then we can.
It's just like You can't be with both Bmi and Acsap at the same time.

So I just want to point out that this is not an attempt to rip people off.
It´s a very easy, direct and no bs way of getting paid for Your work.
The non-PRO member thing is unfortunate because people get very suspicious.
And with all rights!
But we want to do everything by the book.
And all the legal work has not been done yet for the PRO member model.
And therefore it's not up and running.

And again, it might not be for everybody.
But we are today employing a large number of producers who seem happy to be working.

Hope that answers Your questions.

Peer


----------



## mf (Feb 5, 2010)

Yes it does, thanks.

It may be legally covered, but I have reasons to reject buyouts, especially when they imply selling out authorship and intellectual property. Maybe I am close-minded, so I'll leave the open-minded composers to benefit from your business model. Btw, buyouts have been around for some times now, and AFAIK, in the long run it works out far better for buyers than it does for sellers. 
I am a music maker, and music is not for sale, sorry if you see that differently. My service is up for sale though, so I can sell you the right to use my music, as opposed to my ownership on my music. Which is that you are after, the former, or the latter? (the latter includes the former, needless to say)


----------



## Pzy-Clone (Feb 5, 2010)

Personally i dont see the problem with this biz model, provided the buyout is substantial enough offcourse.- 


But why only American Composers?


----------



## midphase (Feb 5, 2010)

I have a theory as to what's going on here:

It sounds to me like those guys are trying to promote a new business model where they sell music to Production Companies and in order to compete against other music libraries, they will allow the Producers to collect any PRO's they can get. Since this can result in thousands of dollars (if not hundreds of thousands, depending on the show), this makes for a very convincing argument to go with them vs. someone like Killer Tracks or others who right now dominate the industry.

Needless to say, this spells doom for composers in the long run, sure in the short term they will get paid up front fees (I can't imagine that they would pay more than a couple of hundred $/minute), but in the long run this could very well be the beginning of the end.

I would urge everyone to think long and hard before setting a precedent like this.

If I'm wrong, I stand corrected, but I can't see any other reason in the world as to why they would not allow people to collect back end royalties through their PRO's otherwise.


----------



## dinerdog (Feb 5, 2010)

+1 on what midphase says.

The only problem with this business model is that it just accelerates the race to the bottom of the value of music. No offense to anyone running a library or with their music in one, but this just speeds up the volume of 'cheap' music. The only people really making money from these things are the 'brains' of the operation who gather all the tracks and then sell the bundle to someone bigger. If you think the guys at Pump Audio (among others) are your friend, you are sadly mistaken.

http://www.pumpaudio.com/advertising/corporate_bios.php

They are 'business' men who see a great way to make money. I'm not saying they shouldn't, but it's sad times ahead for anyone (or their children) who wants to make a living as an artist. Unfortunately, music, photography (almost anything in the digital domain and bundled with your new computers software) and the like are becoming extremely cheap commodities. This is not a debate about 'always room at the top', because that is true. It just that the air up there is getting thin. My 2¢.


----------



## germancomponist (Feb 5, 2010)

Well said, Midphase & Dinerdog. 

This I tryed to say on my first post here. I hate this direction!


----------



## Pzy-Clone (Feb 5, 2010)

well...i dont know a single proffesional or semi pro musician that is not a PRO member.
Why would anyone not be?

I dont see what kind of professional quality one could hope to attract with those conditions anyway...one of the first things any composer does is to register with a PRO, so this is clearly aimed at new artists with no experience or reason for being a PRO member...? 

Dont understand this aproach...how will you buy and resell pro level music if you exclude all the proffesionals?


----------



## snowleopard (Feb 5, 2010)

If I understand it correctly, and someone please correct me if I'm not, within what Mindphase wrote - what it's really doing is relying on the company to continually offer a fair share of the deal, but they will be the ones holding the power to determine that. You're also relying on their ability to sell high volume at a good price to begin with. 

Think of it this way: They get 100 good composers to pump out music. They undercut competitors sales to prodco's, because they don't need to worry about licensing rights and other ancillary pay, resulting in higher volume of sales, but at an increasingly lower price.



> Why would anyone not be?


Young? Just starting out at music?


----------



## midphase (Feb 5, 2010)

So it's the same old crap over and over huh? A bunch of accomplished rich guys exploiting the desperate masses....nice!


----------



## Pzy-Clone (Feb 5, 2010)

"Young? Just starting out at music?"
yes, that was my point...so this is not for established or experienced composers.
Anyone new and young enough to not be registered with a PRO ,would not really be the best candidates for delivering music with "professional" results imo.?

This is like record company mentality...be sure to get new artists signed on before they are experienced enought to realise their value and\or what their rights are.

Bypassing Performance rights altoghether might be a clever idea from a buisness perspective, but they are there for a reason...and the prinicible of protecting and respecting intellectual property is not just a formality and a bother.

So they better make sure people are compensated properly for wavering these rights. If so..then this will be ok imo, at least it will let people make some immediate cash.


----------



## dinerdog (Feb 5, 2010)

Pzy-Clone - 

It is the cult of the amateur. There's soooo much content out there that's 'good enough' for most things. All you have to do is to sort through the piles of work that people will gladly submit. You can tell your friends "Getty" (or whoever) used a picture of mine, or "I heard my song on a douche commercial". They don't care about the money. It's just fun to be famous for :30 seconds. When it's mixed so far below the VO, no one can hear you scream anyway. Again, I hate to use Getty as the monster example, but they lowered the composers share last year. If you didn't agree (sing the contract) your tracks were removed.

Pump Audio Cuts Composer Sync Fee Share 30%

http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=3109

snowleopard is right, the company holds the power.


----------



## Pzy-Clone (Feb 5, 2010)

dinerdog @ Fri Feb 05 said:


> Pzy-Clone -
> 
> It is the cult of the amateur. There's soooo much content out there that's 'good enough' for most things.



he ..well....yeah we clearly have a different perception of what "good" enough is 
So it falls flat on its own merits, sell nonconsequential BS for BS money ?

How is this harmfull to the real talent out there?


You are suggesting that no one is able to tell the difference?
Perhaps...i dont think so, but you might be right


----------



## dcoscina (Feb 5, 2010)

I agree with the above. Anytime someone asks me to write music for no money, I feel the urge to tell them to get bent. Now, this is aside from friends who occasionally might need my assistance. but to people I don't know and have no rapport with, I ain't working for free. My time is costly. The equipment is costly. I wonder if DOPs or editors or actors readily work for free. Probably not. So why should composers? Because the director's friend has Reason or Garageband and a bunch of loops? Perhaps. The democratization of music has been both a blessing and a curse to the industry.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Feb 5, 2010)

> I agree with the above. Anytime someone asks me to write music for no money, I feel the urge to tell them to get bent.



This is how is works for songwriting in LA though. You usually only get royalties, or a really small amount upfront. Depends on the project and budget.

I can attest to this with first hand experience.


----------



## midphase (Feb 5, 2010)

"I wonder if DOPs or editors or actors readily work for free"

DP's or Editors no, but actors yes. Those guys are even more desperate and numerous than composers...talk about a shit career for 99% of them.


PS.

But at least they have a union!


----------



## dinerdog (Feb 5, 2010)

Just in case there's anyone who hasn't seen it, it's probably an appropriate time to repost the Harlan Ellison clip: "Pay The Writer":

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/n ... 148050.asp


----------



## JohnG (Feb 5, 2010)

I would never, ever work with this company, or anyone who says it's PRO free. Scoundrels.


----------



## mf (Feb 5, 2010)

dinerdog @ Fri Feb 05 said:


> snowleopard is right, the company holds the power.


A company only holds power over those who empower it by submitting to its presumed power. One can easily override that "power" with a simple No. For example, tobacco companies may appear powerful to some, but to me they're just ridiculous. And I've watched them becoming more and more ridiculous over the years. Why that happened? Because of the power of a reasonable No.

Just say No, give your reasons, and you'll see them slowly crawling into oblivion.

edit - @ JohnG: o-[][]-o


----------



## madbulk (Feb 5, 2010)

On an individual basis, sure you can say no. But many people will say yes for reasons given here already.
I remember an old ad -- well I don't remember it all that well -- someone here will fix my quote.... but it was Zawinul on the advent of Midi saying something like "any idiot can now pull the trigger." And I think all he meant was, you don't need chops anymore! And he was kinda right.
The value of a certain level of music -- easily good enough for many, and not for others -- is approaching zero. Period.
The cross section with VI Control type people? That's pretty much the "not good enough for others" piece of the pie. Ever shrinking, but never vanishing. It's been going on a long time now.


----------



## mf (Feb 5, 2010)

madbulk @ Fri Feb 05 said:


> The value of a certain level of music -- easily good enough for many, and not for others -- is approaching zero. Period.


Which is great! The price for original, personalized, meaningful music will grow accordingly - for it will be something that only real composers will be able to provide. The worse it gets for the sellouts, the clueless, and the charlatans, the better will be for the rest of us.

Epidemic Sound, spread it out!


----------



## AndreasWaldetoft (Feb 5, 2010)

dinerdog @ Fri Feb 05 said:


> Just in case there's anyone who hasn't seen it, it's probably an appropriate time to repost the Harlan Ellison clip: "Pay The Writer":
> 
> http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/n ... 148050.asp



I love that clip... Im not sure how appropriate it is for this thread though.


----------



## Schroeder (Feb 5, 2010)

well, I'm still a bit puzzled... is this a new kind of music publishing or what?!


----------



## Synesthesia (Feb 6, 2010)

Or maybe you are selling your music outright to these guys and then... *they* collect the royalties!!

Brave new world!!

Where do I sign up?


----------



## madbulk (Feb 6, 2010)

That was what Kays suggested. And it would certainly explain the simplicity of no-PRO's until they've worked out the language for 100% assignment of your PRO rights.
And if the price is right, go ahead and sell. Home Depot sells me a hammer -- if I nail together a house and sell it for a million bucks, HD doesn't care. They got their price for the hammer.


----------



## nikolas (Feb 6, 2010)

intellectual property is not a patent. Intellectual property is copyrighted, inventions are patented (and as a matter of fact, any invention, including software, according to WIPO needs to be attached to a 'device' (for a lack of a better word), in order to get patented. Software is not patented on its own, but needs to have been attached to a physical device, regardless if this is actually true, or used in that way).

Generally speaking copyright holders get everything, while patent holders "only" get the commercial side of things. Copyright registration does NOT force you to show your tricks, your invention and every analytical thought, while patent does!

More over, patents can also work by selling the rights to someone else. So not only distribution but total buyout. (eg. you have the perfect idea for a coffee maker. Best chance is to go find... a company and sell the idea itself, rather than go into making coffee machines yourself).

_______________________

And just to be clear for the above off topic.

Epidemic Sound seems to just hold one proper term in their name ('epidemic' in the worst sense). :( It's a sign of our times I guess... The yer old 'kid in the bedroom making music and ruining the industry' sort of thing. 

So I actually totally agree with most of you here (including mf, but just decided to make a few things clear about patents and the such).


----------



## mf (Feb 8, 2010)

@ nikolas:
Thanks for the nice personal remarks. Now, leaving your straw man approach aside, what do you call BS in my "musical composition as invention' metaphor?


----------



## mf (Feb 8, 2010)

nikolas @ Mon Feb 08 said:


> If your metaphor is right, then...


A metaphor can't be right, nor wrong. A metaphor is just an analogy, based on similarity and not on identity. In some respects, a piece of music is similar to an invention. In some respects, the rights over a piece of music resemble to a patent. Of course a piece of music is not an invention and of course the copyright is not a patent. What other enlightening new news do you have? "The mind's eye" is not a real eye, and, should you wish so, you could easily shoot down that metaphor too, by explaining the differences between a real eye and one's cognitive skills - but doing that would be intrusive, obnoxious, and off the mark.

Thanks for trying, but I still can't see the bullshit you are talking about. It may be there, it may be somewhere else, like the beauty in the mind's eye of the beholder.


----------



## madbulk (Feb 8, 2010)

start a new thread


----------



## Epidemic Sound (Feb 14, 2010)

Hi again!

Just wanted to say thanks for the replies we've gotten!
Great to hear so many talented composers.

And if there's anybody else here matching the criteria described above, that would be interested in working with us, please send us an email at [email protected]

Thanks again!

Peer


----------

