# Are you killing the value of your own music - an open letter



## Lewis Foster (Nov 26, 2018)

Hi all,

Today I published an open letter to raise awareness of the aggressive devaluation and exploitation that's currently happening in the music licensing space.

I figured this would be a very relevant place to share it: Read letter on medium

This is such an important issue for anyone seeking to earn from the placement of their work in video or film. I hope you find it an interesting read and, of course, please feel free to circulate/re-post the letter - the more awareness we can create about this, the better.

- Lewis


----------



## Blake Ewing (Nov 26, 2018)

I came here to post this. PLEASE read this if you are currently or are considering participating in the march to the bottom on sites like artlist and soundstripe et al.


----------



## Beluga (Nov 27, 2018)

Are you talking about epidemic music?


----------



## Lewis Foster (Nov 27, 2018)

@Beluga - Artlist and Soundstripe are the main companies operating the model in question. I believe Epidemic only offer a subscription plan to YouTubers which - in my view - is a much more reasonable approach. If I'm incorrect there though, please do correct me


----------



## Beluga (Nov 28, 2018)

Lewis Foster said:


> @Beluga - Artlist and Soundstripe are the main companies operating the model in question. I believe Epidemic only offer a subscription plan to YouTubers which - in my view - is a much more reasonable approach. If I'm incorrect there though, please do correct me


I’m afraid from what I heard from one of their clients they do have a subscription model of 200 $ per month or something for unlimited (? not sure..) use of music in commercial productions including promotional material. We are talking multi million companies not Youtubers.


----------



## Paul Grymaud (Nov 28, 2018)

Sad...

Lewis, You are absolutely right. This sort of attitude coming from commercial companies is a shame. Composers must develop *self-esteem* otherwise customers will have no respect for them and we will work soon for free. Our work is invaluable.


----------



## Lewis Foster (Nov 28, 2018)

Looks like you're right @Beluga. I have a feeling that may be a recent change for Epidemic. It's cheap, but still nowhere near as cheap as the main culprits.


----------



## Beluga (Nov 28, 2018)

Lewis Foster said:


> Looks like you're right @Beluga. I have a feeling that may be a recent change for Epidemic. It's cheap, but still nowhere near as cheap as the main culprits.


Well, it still hurted me directly with this client who was raving on about how cheap the music was. While I kept rolling my eyes.


----------



## -JM- (Nov 28, 2018)

Dear Lewis,

Thank you for your efforts!! It seems that there are composers who have no idea about the value of their music.

-I am sometimes confronted with customers who are surprised that the buy-out of a high-end piece of produced music would cost them more than their monthly Spotify subscription _(not yet talking about additional Pro royalties_). 

I’ve heard from young composers who are selling finished produced instrumental tracks as a buy-out for 200,- or allow unlimited usage for 20,- . Their ignorance and struggle between composers makes them forget the value of their art. 

-Some exlusive libraries (which usually take away your music in perpetuity), trend towards a music flatrate mentality which seems like a nightmare, although I am sure that a company who exclusively signed your music away will not be allowed to change their pricing to such a flatrate model without checking back with their composers and asking them explicitly for their participation… otherwise any silent change towards such a model could be considered as a breach of contract. 

-A serious problem in the music world is a trend, which educates the young generations to consider music as something which is (almost) free of costs. Pro software, top sample libraries, first class hardware and creating high-end productions cost not only love, energy and devotion but also a lot of money, which helps me to demand reasonable prices… however, nowadays many „producers“ (and hobby musicians who are not dependent to earn a living from their music) compete with their bedroom equipment and some youngsters of the smartphone generation who consider 128 kb/s mp3 as sonic bliss, are often not hearing the difference anymore. 

My suggestion to transcend these trends is not to fear these library-sharks and their ego based models but strictly not to cooperate with them,...focus on the quality of your productions in such a way that customers will hear and feel that mediocre music may be available for low prices, but that quality deserves an appropriate payment.

I am sure that your open letter will have a very positive impact (Btw, may it also motivate you to raise the pricing of your p.m. library – I just saw that you offer rather low prices compared to other libraries. I suggest that you double your prices immediately!).

Kind Regards
-JM-


----------



## Oliver_Codd (Nov 28, 2018)

Great post Lewis.

A couple years back I posted a video expressing my frustration with the state of the trailer music licensing scene. A few companies started undercutting and became quite successful, yet the composers were bringing in much less. I urged composers to push for higher percentages as a way to pressure the publishing companies to raise their rates back up. This seemed to resonate with a lot of folks, but sadly few actually took action. 2 years later, these same companies are now publicly complaining about the emergence of new companies that have similar sounding music and lower prices. The irony! Now in response, they're trying to enforce exclusivity to the existing composers! No wonder so many decide to leave and start their own publishing companies... The race to the bottom doesn't end well for anyone. 

I appreciate your efforts to heal a rapidly deteriorating industry. THANK YOU.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Nov 28, 2018)

Personally, I found the article to be boring. It was more complaining about the “state of the industry” with nothing to make things better.

Then I went to Music Vine to check out the site, music, and prices. Shameful in all ways. Lewis should stick to the dayjob and charge more money for the music on the site. 

Blogs don’t do jack spit these days.


----------



## Chr!s (Nov 28, 2018)

I fully expect I'll get hate mail here, and I'm not saying I disagree with the article in a general sense about predatory business models, but it makes the mistake of failing to address a fundamental problem that exists beyond corporate greed.

You see, one of their sections is titled "but why is music so valuable, anyway?"

The misconception here is that music is just _inherently_ "valuable". It isn't. Especially not when you're offering the _exact same thing_ as 1000s of others.

9/10 production music tracks, and many composers in general today, are making music that sounds basically the same. The same string ostinatos, the same block chords, the same percussion, the same low brass, etc. I mean, trailer music has been boiled down to a literal formula. It's just assembly-line music with no obvious features that identify it as being a particular composer's work.

If they go to like...John Williams and say "John will you compose for us?" they'll pay just about whatever he wants, I'm sure of it, because they want _John Williams and his signature style_.

But if you're just doing the same thing as everyone else, of course they're going to go for the cheapest option, because that's all you can really offer them over the others.


----------



## JohnG (Nov 28, 2018)

The catch is that, often, the customers sort of _want_ exactly the music to which they're accustomed.

It sometimes occurs -- people actually, really do want something original. But, often enough, if you present something really weird (or even a little bit unusual), you discover that, after all, they want the music in a trailer to perform the same functions that they are in the habit of hearing. 

If that's the case, you have to offer either

a) An original take on the "same old thing," or;

b) A lot more "craft" and cleverness than normal; and / or

c) An ear-catching performance and mix.

In other words, the-same-but-different. 

As Alexander Pope put it in his "Essay on Criticism:"

*True Wit is Nature to advantage dress'd*
*What oft was thought, but ne'er so well express'd;*
*Something whose truth convinced at sight we find,*
*That gives us back the image of our mind.*
*As shades more sweetly recommend the light,*
*So modest plainness sets off sprightly wit.*

― Alexander Pope


----------



## Erick - BVA (Nov 28, 2018)

Chr!s said:


> I fully expect I'll get hate mail here, and I'm not saying I disagree with the article in a general sense about predatory business models, but it makes the mistake of failing to address a fundamental problem that exists beyond corporate greed.
> 
> You see, one of their sections is titled "but why is music so valuable, anyway?"
> 
> ...


And this is precisely why music doesn't have as much value as it once did. So I don't think you're off base or wrong at all. It's become so much easier to produce. And with the invention and development of AI composing tools, it's only going to get worse. The value of something is increased with scarcity. Inversely, the value of something is decreased by its abundance. Supply-side economics is rearing its head. So we need to develop a unique style that is "ours'. In a way I guess, just produce something that is scarce via assertion. We can do this and still produce accessible music. The PROs have been fighting for us in some ways (and for themselves of course) --trying to increase representation of artists in licensing laws and performance rights laws. Recently, there have been some "wins" in this regard in the courts. I think we just need to concentrate on being as unique and relevant as possible (even though those words seem contradictory). The world doesn't owe us anything, and we can't really force things to be a certain way. We have to adapt and utilize the information and tools we have to the best of our ability. I know that seems pessimistic, but I believe it's true regardless.


----------



## rgames (Nov 28, 2018)

I contend that the music for media business is actually better for composers now than ever before. 

Here's why:

There are the same number of top-tier composers and top-tier gigs providing top-tier pay as there have been for - what - 50 years? The difference is that there are entirely new segments of the market that started to emerge about 20 years ago. Video game music didn't exist back then. YouTube didn't exist back then. Netflix didn't exist back then. 1,000 cable channels with 500 reality shows didn't exist back then. All of that is new and that's where the huge boom in lower-paying gigs exists.

The composers making money off reality TV, YouTube, whatever would be earing $0 from it 50 years ago. In my case it's a decent chunk of change as a second income - I write a few dozen tracks a year in my home studio and there's a market that can use them. That didn't exist 50 years ago. Someone in my position is vastly better off than 50 years ago for that reason.

Now the question of value is a different matter: that's a personal preference. If some kid in his bedroom can produce a product that meets the needs of the consumer, and he's willing to do it for $5 vs. your price of $500 then yeah, you're going to lose that gig. But the only time that's a problem is when there is a mass of people who have no other opportunities (e.g. sweat shops in third-world countries). But I have never met a composer who couldn't make a living doing something else. So it's a choice and we should let the market play out as it will. Nobody has a fundamental right to make a living from his music.

So yes, convince composers to value their music more. I certainly support that. But the statement that music is valued less today than 50 years ago doesn't appear to be backed by reality.

rgames


----------



## gregh (Nov 28, 2018)

rgames said:


> I contend that the music for media business is actually better for composers now than ever before.
> 
> Here's why:
> 
> ...



not really - you are forgetting the opportunities that have closed and also your market fundamentalist position is not supported by anything other than ideology. There is no personal preference that is not learned almost in toto through the environment one is exposed to and that environment is biased because there is no "pure" market. Therefore personal preferences are biased - and biased by the dominant power structures and market distortions that obtain in one's environment. Similarly for needs of the consumer in a post subsistence world.


----------



## -JM- (Nov 29, 2018)

There seemed to be a fear engulfing composers, producers and libraries that gives them the impression that their works become more or less worthless as there is so much competition, many ego based service providing companies and copycats who try to make fast money by throwing moral ethics aside. If a client wants you to copy something you can do that if you want to make him/her happy… at all other times I would highly recommend to set great store on uniquness and high quality… all else will be a creative and financial disadvantage in the long run. Most library composers sound rather similar as they don’t dare to focus on their very own style and because only a few libraries pay good advances which enhances the struggle between composers. If a good number of composers and producers would re-consider their own value and do their music intrinsically motivated (no matter what the outside tells them) that quality will always beat quantity. If the people who read this thread think positive and compose something just because their love for the music today, this will have a very powerful impact on this fear cloud, I for one will immediately do that… 

Lewis and his Team should not stick to a dayjob if he loves his library… but „walk his talk“ and demand at least higher licensing fees from his clients. 

Best Regards


----------



## Lewis Foster (Nov 29, 2018)

@Paul Grymaud - Completely agree with your note!

@-JM- - Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences. I 100% agree that the key these days is to focus on producing real quality. Truly authentic, well produced and contemporary production music actually remains fairly hard to come by. I think that should be a reassurance for us all. I also agree that with a quality catalogue comes a responsibility to set the right prices. Your feedback does not fall on deaf ears.

@Oliver_Codd - Thanks for your kind note & sharing your experiences. Let's hope this letter has some positive impact - it's certainly started some conversations already, which can only be a good thing.

Desire Inspires - Wow buddy, given the several comments you've made on the other forum, you're going to quite some length to troll me, the letter & Music Vine. Please go easy on the tone - there's a human over here, not just words on a screen! And, again, huge difference between complaining and raising awareness - my letter was intended to do the latter. 

@Chris - Very interesting perspective. I'd love to discuss that perspective more with you (will try post later on), but I need to head off! But wanted to say, thanks for the intelligent post


----------



## Alex Fraser (Nov 29, 2018)

I largely agree with Chris here.

I can see that the business models described in the article are vastly weighted against the composer.
Not good.

But I often think the music industry is kind of stuck between the "glory days" of royalties and the more crushing daily reality. The expectation that the creation of a musical work then entitles the composer to an ongoing income stream is fairly alien to say, a plumber who gets paid an hourly rate.

Whilst you should always get paid for your work - I think sometimes there has to be a reality check. For example - I'm one of the composers mentioned who (sometimes) gives away the entire rights to a track for about £200. But - if that track was completed in 2 -3 hours from start to finish - is it worth much more than that? That's the question. And that £200 feeds the kids.

I'm not saying anyone's approach is the right or wrong one. Clearly - as aways - musicians are being shafted. But sometimes reality gets in the way. For me, anyway. Just putting it out there for further discussion.


----------



## -JM- (Nov 29, 2018)

@alex - There’s nothing wrong in caring for your kids and to survive… but if a composer considers his/her art as worthy, gives the best, invests true love, energy and time into the production and radiates the self worth that the result deserves more than 200,- I am convinced that such a person will draw those people into his/her life who are willing to pay far more than 200,- 

If a generation of youngsters considers music as a free thing and if people become aware that there are composers and companies who start fighting themselves by lowering their pricing models, the result for composers and libraries will be fear, lack of perfectionism and a reduction of Musical expansion and uniqueness… on the other hand it will automatically reward those who do not let themselves be fooled by these trends and who continue to set great store on quality. 

@Lewis– That’s good to know! I do not suggest that you should demand e.g. 10 times as much (as some major p.m. libraries do), but your current pricing model would keep me away from your site as it will mainly attract low budget projects or people who don’t estimate the quality of your catalogue. (If you and your composers gave your best and can really be proud about your works then you should deserve more than peanuts).


----------



## Alex Fraser (Nov 29, 2018)

-JM- said:


> @alex - There’s nothing wrong in caring for your kids and to survive… but if a composer considers his/her art as worthy, gives the best, invests true love, energy and time into the production and radiates the self worth that the result deserves more than 200,- I am convinced that such a person will draw those people into his/her life who are willing to pay far more than 200


Not arguing with this - makes logical sense. But great swathes of the market aren't willing (or don't have the budget) for that sort of money. And so we sometimes have to match the product to expectation of price.

Sometimes I get a small film project to work on that I can pour my everything into - but they don't pay very well. So it's done for love and to keep me interested in music.

The other thing to add is that to attract those people who are willing to pay more money, you kinda have to be more established in the industry in the first place. Catch 22. This long term goal vs bills to pay conflict is something I struggle with daily.

Great discussion folks. Keep it coming!


----------



## Uncle Peter (Nov 29, 2018)

These sites that sell shit music for knack all will be totally killed off by AI music generation companies (which will sell better, custom music very cheaply). AI is now capable of composing a piece and creating the sounds from scratch (bypassing VIs). I think this has only been done for plinky plonky piano pieces. But if you look in the top 50 downloaded tracks of any library, these types of composition always feature highly.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Nov 29, 2018)

@Lewis Foster, no trolling here. Just expressing my views. You expressed yours, so I expressed mine. I don’t see anything that fundamentally stands out from the prices, the music, or the marketing. But keep at it. Take chances and be successful.

I am interested to see how your company is doing in the next 2 to 5 years.


----------



## Erick - BVA (Nov 29, 2018)

Uncle Peter said:


> These sites that sell shit music for knack all will be totally killed off by AI music generation companies (which will sell better, custom music very cheaply). AI is now capable of composing a piece and creating the sounds from scratch (bypassing VIs). I think this has only been done for plinky plonky piano pieces. But if you look in the top 50 downloaded tracks of any library, these types of composition always feature highly.


AI can also be used by composers to better their compositions. There is a company releasing something in early 2019 (can't remember the name), and they will charge composers a fee (per month) to help them produce 30 tracks per month. I think AI can be a tool. If someone is just spitting out AI generated music and not tweaking, arranging and putting any finesse into it, it's going to show. In the end the music will sort itself out.
There are also genres of music which will not be covered by AI for some time --most notably folk and rock music (requiring a combination of guitars, voices, harmonica, drums, etc...) If they were able to produce these, it would be far inferior to live performances.
So a way to get ahead of the curve would be to get good at producing music for live instruments, and also use AI to your advantage wherever it makes sense to.


----------



## -JM- (Nov 29, 2018)

@ Alex - If you consider your current situation as „reality“, then you will exactly draw those conditions and clients into your life (and have to struggle). If your motives are good and your art and productions, too, then it is not so much a matter of being established in the industry but of being at the right place at the right time and to reap that which you mentally sowed. I am far from being an esoteric, but if you can honestly consider yourself and your work as worthy you will get much more than if you consider it as cheap. Once again, if everyone who reads this thread invests some faith into the hope and conviction that arts and music deserve more than streaming cents, then this will have a most powerful impact on the mass consciousness.

Best Regards


----------



## Uncle Peter (Nov 29, 2018)

Sibelius19 said:


> There are also genres of music which will not be covered by AI for some time --most notably folk and rock music (requiring a combination of guitars, voices, harmonica, drums, etc...) If they were able to produce these, it would be far inferior to live performances.



These are already being tackled - and VIs interpret the resulting midi file. The results currently are okish not great. But the progress over the past 5 years has been phenomenal.


----------



## Chr!s (Nov 30, 2018)

I'm not afraid of the AI takeover because it won't happen.

I mean, on a small-scale, it will and some people will just rely on it entirely, but these people will find themselves at a race to the bottom, just as they often do now.

I don't want to get political here, but it's impossible to talk about this without doing so to some extent:

We're living in a time right now where globalists have done their best to try and make us servants of the economy rather than making the economy serve us and they tell us that the changes they want are "inevitable". They aren't. The point of technology or economic systems is that they are supposed to serve people to help us live better, happier lives. But at a certain point, certain technologies stop benefiting society as a whole and actually become a detriment to that happiness.

_We control the machines_. Not the other way around. All that it takes to stop automated trucks from killing 100s of thousands of jobs or AI composers is to just say "No." and life will go on. This can be enforced, either on the state or private level depending on the item in question.

For example: The Amish. Now, I wouldn't want to live like the Amish but guess what? They're not suffering by living the way they do. I've seen documentaries on places in Scandanavia that still live like it was in the Viking Age (minus the plundering) or Medieval Villages and they seem happy to live that way. The tribe that killed that missionary have no interest in the outside world. They should be allowed to live that way, they can, and they do.

We need to stop productivity just for productivity sake and boosting GDPs because everyone wants to be a superpower when...it just doesn't matter. I'm not benefiting from this, you probably aren't. Instead it just makes life harder on us. They want to put us on a nanny-state where we can live on hand-outs and then reinvest the scraps into consumer goods so that the rich can continue to get obscenely wealthy. It's this incredibly bizarre merger between capitalism and socialism.

But all it takes is to say "no" and we have and will continue to do so. Why? Because if you're a musician, a filmmaker, an artist, an actor, an explorer, an adventurer, you are not a materialist. If you ARE, somehow, then you're just in the wrong damn business.

How many of us don't make a cent but still make music anyway? How many of us wouldn't NEED to hire live players, but do anyway? How many filmmakers could abandon live actors for CG models completely if they wanted to, but don't? 3D animation is way cheaper to produce than 2D, yet hand-drawn animation is alive and well on TV and video games. How many of us haven't climbed mountains just because, or our ancestors sailed west just to see what was out there, even if it offered no reward or even certain death?

The immaterial is what we need to continue to embrace, and I believe we will. AI could be a great help to composing, or it can be a replacement, but no matter what they tell you: The choice is ours.



....damn that was a long post.


----------



## Bullersten (Dec 10, 2019)

Just stumbled on this year-old thread while looking for more info on music libraries. Very interesting content, what is the state of play in the music licensing business today? Any changes since?

One important point is missing from these conversations around the "value" of music: It is its "marginal cost of production". Making a track means spending time, rent and electricity (after acquiring gear). This sets the marginal cost of production which should logically define the minimum fee you need to charge to recoup your cost. The less time you spend producing a minute of music, the smaller your fee per minute of music produced. It is strange to think of making music in these terms, but this is the way from a business perspective.

On that basis, if I had to theorise as to what happened to this industry since the turn of the century, I would say on one hand, the music supply exploded with marginal costs dropping dramatically through advances in digital music processing. On the other hand, music demand also exploded with interest of video based social media platforms and internet based streaming content providers (netflix, amazon, etc).

In conclusion, I think the global market in the music licensing business must be greater than ever, but from the point of view of a single composer, earning a living must be harder than ever.


----------



## YaniDee (Jan 12, 2020)

There's a site now selling monthly subscriptions for 17$..with unlimited downloads, commercial rights (for life!) and other perks..At this point the time and money we put into our art /craft is a losing battle.
I have 2 cousins who've managed to live very comfortable lives teaching piano..Composing will make a few people rich, but for most it's becoming a waste of time and effort (apart from self gratification)...









Royalty-Free Music for Video Creators | Artlist


Explore the ultimate royalty-free music & sound effects catalogs for unlimited use in YouTube videos, social media & films created by inspiring indie artists worldwide. The go-to music licensing choice for all creators




artlist.io


----------



## Krayh (Jan 16, 2020)

YaniDee said:


> There's a site now selling monthly subscriptions for 17$..with unlimited downloads, commercial rights (for life!) and other perks..At this point the time and money we put into our art /craft is a losing battle.
> I have 2 cousins who've managed to live very comfortable lives teaching piano..Composing will make a few people rich, but for most it's becoming a waste of time and effort (apart from self gratification)...
> 
> 
> ...



And are these top notch productions or below mediocore?


----------



## Erick - BVA (Jan 16, 2020)

Krayh said:


> And are these top notch productions or below mediocore?


They sound pretty good to my ears. Not all to my taste, but productions sound better than most RF sites.


----------



## Krayh (Jan 16, 2020)

Thats unfortunate. So it seems we are gliding towards stock photography, where there is absolutely no more money to be made.


----------



## CGR (Jan 16, 2020)

YaniDee said:


> There's a site now selling monthly subscriptions for 17$..with unlimited downloads, commercial rights (for life!) and other perks..At this point the time and money we put into our art /craft is a losing battle.
> I have 2 cousins who've managed to live very comfortable lives teaching piano..Composing will make a few people rich, but for most it's becoming a waste of time and effort (apart from self gratification)...
> 
> 
> ...



VI Control member @Kyle Preston has numerous tracks (of a high quality I might add) with this service. Kyle, I'm interested in your experience with them, and your thought processes which led to your decision to sign up as an artist with them.


----------



## YaniDee (Jan 16, 2020)

Krayh said:


> And are these top notch productions or below mediocore?





Sibelius19 said:


> They sound pretty good to my ears. Not all to my taste, but productions sound better than most RF sites.


I didn't listen to a lot of tracks, but what I heard was quite decent..I was watching a youtube video and I thought the music was vey good, so I clicked on the link in the description and found the site. Then I went back to working on a piece of music while thinking "boy it's going to be hard to make a living doing this"..



Krayh said:


> Thats unfortunate. So it seems we are gliding towards stock photography, where there is absolutely no more money to be made.


I also do stock photography, and I agree.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Jan 16, 2020)

Something has to give though, right? This probably links into the Discovery thread..

With all these threads on the "state of the industry" my overriding thought is always that someone _must _be making money amongst all the noise. The new music has to come from somewhere and surely _everyone_ can't be writing and seeing nothing in return? If that was the case, the library model would have gone belly up some time ago with nothing to sustain it.

I don't know what the answer is, unfortunately.


----------



## Erick - BVA (Jan 16, 2020)

On a positive note, I joined AudioSparx about 7 years ago, and I'm finally getting my first payout!!! Woohoo! hahaha
Granted, I only have a handful of tracks up, but still. Our own music is becoming a drop in the bucket to these sites with over a million tracks. Perhaps we just gotta be unique and start our own websites, not these corporate centered, ukulele folk driven websites. Maybe that's the way to go now.


----------



## Erick - BVA (Jan 16, 2020)

Alex Fraser said:


> Something has to give though, right? This probably links into the Discovery thread..
> 
> With all these threads on the "state of the industry" my overriding thought is always that someone _must _be making money amongst all the noise. The new music has to come from somewhere and surely _everyone_ can't be writing and seeing nothing in return? If that was the case, the library model would have gone belly up some time ago with nothing to sustain it.
> 
> I don't know what the answer is, unfortunately.


Unfortunately it is primarily the hosting party (Pond5, AudioJungle, Artlist, etc) making the big cash. They are accumulating creative capital and taking a slice of each sale. There may be some who make a living doing it, but most people are probably the "starving artists" with a dream to "make it." I wouldn't call it exploitation. These hosting sites are providing a service that we otherwise wouldn't be able to do ourselves (well, most of us).
I'm seriously considering starting my own royalty free website with just my music. Why sell myself short by putting my stuff in a site where my track will be one of a million+?
Over the years I've had users of the various platforms contact and tell me how unique my music is, and even Mike Pace said perhaps my music isn't really suited for the usual RF markets. And I agree! I'm not the greatest producer though. But I think people forgive that if you have something unique to say. But enough about me. I will say that about anyone else with good musical talent. Why not consider your own licensing website?
And just as the music industry is evolving, so is the website building industry. There are more affordable ways of getting a website built these days (and not just one you build yourself). Dare I say, a monthly payment plan? Would I be a hypocrite?


----------



## Bluemount Score (Jan 16, 2020)

I must admit, after reading this complete thread, for me it has been one of the most insightful and interesting discussions in this forum.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Jan 16, 2020)

Sibelius19 said:


> Why not consider your own licensing website?


I did - 12 years ago and it's done just about OK! But yet again, the market has got more saturated since.

The main advantage of doing it yourself is that you can _market your work._ Email lists, social media. You know the drill. It means you're in control instead of posting and hoping. It's not for everyone though. The folks who make a real success of it (far more than me) spend most of the time marketing rather than composing.

I know there's a couple of other peeps on the forum who have gone in a similar direction.


----------



## Bullersten (Jan 16, 2020)

Since the demand for music for video/TV is high, I only see 2 possibilities:

Targeting a high number of placements as an anonymous artist i.e. going for daily uploads of short tracks with clear emotional signature. The more tracks submitted, the higher the chances of one going viral.
Creating a high quality, innovative body of work that can be presented to Film/TV production companies in the hope of getting an assignment in their next project. The more companies contacted, the higher the chance of one accepting the offer.
Either way, there is a lot of work involved and clearly no guarantees.


----------



## Kyle Preston (Jan 16, 2020)

CGR said:


> VI Control member @Kyle Preston has numerous tracks (of a high quality I might add) with this service. Kyle, I'm interested in your experience with them, and your thought processes which led to your decision to sign up as an artist with them.




Thank you for the kind words @CGR .

I have my work in 41 libraries, a few exclusive, most non, so I'm not saying this naively -- Artlist has been by _far_ the best. Undoubtedly, my opinion is biased so take it with a grain of salt. 

And I'll tell you my exact thought process for why I signed with them. There's an excellent YouTube channel called Film Riot. They posted a video years ago showing how the service worked, aimed at directors, producers, etc... It occurred to me that since Film Riot is a trusted and popular channel, lots of creatives were likely to sign up, and they did! I've met and worked for a lot of them that found my music and hired me because they discovered me on the platform. I've always preferred non-exclusive deals so signing for me was a win-win.

I liked that they didn't send briefs asking for our best Zimmer impressions (none of us can do what he does). I liked that they let me do my thing and that they have a large pool of interested and engaged creatives that look forward to new music releases. I get a few emails a month asking if/when something I put out on streaming will be available on Artlist. 

Most of the comments in here don't understand, or want to understand how this works, how math works, or just how much the industry has changed in the last 5 years. You cannot think about this stuff so linearly. These platforms are not an all you can eat buffet and they have high expectations for the quality of work. It should be obvious why Lewis wrote that letter, his business is in direct competition. It's also worth pointing out that since the letter was written, Music Vine pivoted to offer the same style subscription plan that so many in this thread are upset about. 

Every time this topic emerges, on this forum or in one of the dozens of composer facebook groups I've left due to garbage human beings behaving garbagely -- every time, every, single, time, there's a swath of comments rooted in zero information. _Why do people who know the least know it the loudest?_ (- George Carlin)

If you're an up and coming composer, take it all in skeptically, even what I'm saying. There are plenty of good books to arm yourselves against dumb opinions. Emmett Cooke's _The Business of Music Licensing_ and Dan Graham's _A Composer's Guide to Library Music_ are both excellent, their advice has been truthful and valuable to my career. 

Your mileage may vary.


----------



## Bullersten (Jan 16, 2020)

@Kyle Preston : It makes total sense to spread the non-exclusive tracks around. 41 libraries is an impressive number. It makes you wonder how their respective market share compare. If they can all survive and prosper, the sync market is even bigger than I even suspected...


----------



## Erick - BVA (Jan 16, 2020)

Kyle Preston said:


> I have my work in 41 libraries



Wonderful response all around, but how on earth did you have time for this?


----------



## Greg (Jan 16, 2020)

Kyle Preston said:


> Thank you for the kind words @CGR .
> 
> I have my work in 41 libraries, a few exclusive, most non, so I'm not saying this naively -- Artlist has been by _far_ the best.



Curious if you would be willing to explain a ballpark of your artlist stats? In terms of how many downloads = how many dollars? Or however they figure out how to cut payments with their artists? I think a lot of the pitchfork swinging has to do with having no clue how it actually works.


----------



## Kyle Preston (Jan 16, 2020)

Greg said:


> Curious if you would be willing to explain a ballpark of your artlist stats? In terms of how many downloads = how many dollars? Or however they figure out how to cut payments with their artists? I think a lot of the pitchfork swinging has to do with having no clue how it actually works.




Per my contract, that would be super uncool to share. Especially knowing their competitors could read this. I'll just say that they know what they're doing, that they're trying to build something (not destroy), and for composers like me who are more interested in a _recording artist_ approach, they're the best game in town.


----------



## Greg (Jan 16, 2020)

Kyle Preston said:


> Per my contract, that would be super uncool to share. Especially knowing their competitors could read this. I'll just say that they know what they're doing, that they're trying to build something (not destroy), and for composers like me who are more interested in a _recording artist_ approach, they're the best game in town.



Makes sense, thanks anyway. Sorry to keep prodding you for info but I am really curious about them. Last question, what do they mean by "pre cleared for Youtube monetization?" Are you still able to have your tracks in a service like Adrev for content ID claims on users not signed up with Artlist?


----------



## Kyle Preston (Jan 16, 2020)

Greg said:


> Makes sense, thanks anyway. Sorry to keep prodding you for info but I am really curious about them. Last question, what do they mean by "pre cleared for Youtube monetization?" Are you still able to have your tracks in a service like Adrev for content ID claims on users not signed up with Artlist?



All good man 😊. That’s actually a new thing with them and I’m not sure what the policy is for new users. I imagine with your sizable YouTube following you’ll want to be careful with that. Whitelisting channels/videos is easy, just like you would with a distributor. You could always email them to ask Adrev specifics.


----------



## CGR (Jan 16, 2020)

Kyle Preston said:


> Thank you for the kind words @CGR .
> 
> I have my work in 41 libraries, a few exclusive, most non, so I'm not saying this naively -- Artlist has been by _far_ the best. Undoubtedly, my opinion is biased so take it with a grain of salt.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your detailed reply Kyle. Will do some more researching.


----------



## Greg (Jan 16, 2020)

Kyle Preston said:


> All good man 😊. That’s actually a new thing with them and I’m not sure what the policy is for new users. I imagine with your sizable YouTube following you’ll want to be careful with that. Whitelisting channels/videos is easy, just like you would with a distributor. You could always email them to ask Adrev specifics.



For sure, I will report back with the details for anyone else curious about them. They really keep everything secret even while applying to be an artist.


----------



## chillbot (Jan 16, 2020)

Kyle Preston said:


> Every time this topic emerges, on this forum or in one of the dozens of composer facebook groups I've left due to garbage human beings behaving garbagely -- every time, every, single, time, there's a swath of comments rooted in zero information.


Bravo. This is why I had to abandon the "discovery royalties" thread as well.


----------



## Kyle Preston (Jan 16, 2020)

chillbot said:


> Bravo. This is why I had to abandon the "discovery royalties" thread as well.




I feel you man. I really appreciated your insight in there though, even if it was drowned out.


----------



## CGR (Jan 16, 2020)

Paul Grymaud said:


> Sad...
> 
> Lewis, You are absolutely right. This sort of attitude coming from commercial companies is a shame. Composers must develop *self-esteem* otherwise customers will have no respect for them and we will work soon for free. Our work is invaluable.



Ultimately the choice is ours in how we participate in the various distribution options available - no one is forcing our hand in this rapidly changing landscape. To say "our work is invaluable" may be true on a personal & artistic level, but in a commercial sense unfortunately it's not up to the Artist to determine the value of their work - the market's supply & demand equation will dictate that.


----------



## Madrigal (Jan 16, 2020)

Kyle Preston said:


> I'll just say that they know what they're doing, that they're trying to build something (not destroy), and for composers like me who are more interested in a _recording artist_ approach, they're the best game in town.



The most important part of the letter Lewis wrote is the following: 
_For a single annual fee of $200 USD or less, these companies open up their entire catalogue for use in an unlimited number of productions of any type and scale and with any distribution._

The subscription model definitely fills a gap in a market of smaller creators and companies that produce a very steady stream of content on social media & youtube. There is certainly interesting revenue to be made for artists in a market like this given the scale of content that is produced on a daily basis on these platforms, internationally. And that's great, both for content creators and musicians. 

The problem arises when a subscription service isn't tiered. This means Nike with their 10 million dollar budget TV Ad pays the same thing as a youtuber with 10 followers. If you believe music is like any commercial product or commodity, such as rice or a pencil, well then fine, but if you consider music an art form, then you are definitely devaluating it by selling it in bulk to entities of all means, purposes and sizes. Even from a purely business standpoint, platforms like these are voluntarily turning down extra revenue opportunities for themselves and their artists. 

This is about sacrificing the long term perceived value of music in exchange for short term profits. Sure, there's still room for growth, but what happens when a swarm of similar companies start entering the market? The harm will have been done, the slice of the pie will diminish for everyone and the same thing that happened to music with streaming services will happen to the licensing world. Except that when you stream something on Spotify, it's for your personal enjoyment, not to sell a product. This is an important distinction to make. 

Lewis has a bias, but that doesn't mean he hasn't raised valuable questions.


----------



## Bullersten (Jan 16, 2020)

Madrigal said:


> The problem arises when a subscription service isn't tiered. This means Nike with their 10 million dollar budget TV Ad pays the same thing as a youtuber with 10 followers. If you believe music is like any commercial product or commodity, such as rice or a pencil, well then fine, but if you consider music an art form, then you are definitely devaluating it by selling it in bulk to entities of all means, purposes and sizes. Even from a purely business standpoint, platforms like these are voluntarily turning down extra revenue opportunities for themselves and their artists.
> 
> This is about sacrificing the long term perceived value of music in exchange for short term profits. Sure, there's still room for growth, but what happens when a swarm of similar companies start entering the market? The harm will have been done, the slice of the pie will diminish for everyone and the same thing that happened to music with streaming services will happen to the licensing world. Except that when you stream something on Spotify, it's for your personal enjoyment, not to sell a product. This is an important distinction to make.



The value of a product does not depend on how wealthy the buyer is. You could not charge Nike more for using your track than a random Youtuber simply because the random Youtuber could then sell his rights to Nike... Value is set by supply and demand, nothing else. It could be a bike or a painting, the principle always applies.


----------



## Erick - BVA (Jan 17, 2020)

Bullersten said:


> The value of a product does not depend on how wealthy the buyer is. You could not charge Nike more for using your track than a random Youtuber simply because the random Youtuber could then sell his rights to Nike... Value is set by supply and demand, nothing else. It could be a bike or a painting, the principle always applies.


Though, I think an argument could be made for the "use case" determining price. Not tier based on the buyer's income, but what they're using it for, and the expected audience engagement. Audio Jungle has a tier system like that. I think there should be a difference between someone buying a license for a personal video (maybe a wedding proposal, etc), and someone buying for a multi-million dollar budgeted film.
Why would they pay Hans Zimmer as much as they do, but then dismiss the value of the "little guy"?
If some music supervisor finds the "perfect" track for a big film, shouldn't it be similarly valued? Certainly not exactly the same, since it wouldn't be custom. But at least more than the usual.

And if different platforms can charge vastly different prices, then it is not only supply/demand that determines price, otherwise they'd all have a similar price and pricing scheme (like a gas price).

Also, selling a cheap license to a Youtuber definitely does not give them rights to sell it to Nike. Most (probably all) EULAs would strictly forbid this.
If they did pay for a buyout license, regardless of who they are, they'd pay a big price. And if they did, they'd have a right to see what a bigger company may pay for a buyout.

I agree with you in principle though, that you shouldn't charge different prices for different buyers based solely on those differences. I think that's discrimination. But as I've stated above, you can definitely justify a different price depending on what it will be used for. And in general those that will use it for a more lucrative venture, are those with a bigger budget and income.


----------



## CGR (Jan 17, 2020)

Sibelius19 said:


> . . .I think there should be a difference between someone buying a license for a personal video (maybe a wedding proposal, etc), and someone buying for a multi-million dollar budgeted film.
> 
> I agree with you in principle though, that you shouldn't charge different prices for different buyers based solely on those differences. I think that's discrimination. But as I've stated above, you can definitely justify a different price depending on what it will be used for. And in general those that will use it for a more lucrative venture, are those with a bigger budget and income.



Absolutely - where in the latter case the music helps generate substantial income for the corporation.


----------



## Bullersten (Jan 17, 2020)

Sibelius19 said:


> Though, I think an argument could be made for the "use case" determining price. Not tier based on the buyer's income, but what they're using it for, and the expected audience engagement. Audio Jungle has a tier system like that. I think there should be a difference between someone buying a license for a personal video (maybe a wedding proposal, etc), and someone buying for a multi-million dollar budgeted film.
> Why would they pay Hans Zimmer as much as they do, but then dismiss the value of the "little guy"?
> If some music supervisor finds the "perfect" track for a big film, shouldn't it be similarly valued? Certainly not exactly the same, since it wouldn't be custom. But at least more than the usual.
> 
> Also, if different platforms can charge vastly different prices, then it is not only supply/demand that determines price, otherwise they'd all have a similar price and pricing scheme (like a gas price).



If I had a skateboard company for example, would I charge for a specific board one price to a teenage customer going to ride it at the local park, and a premium price for a pro that will be using it on a TV documentary. Possibly not, because the pro can buy it from the local kid I just sold it to...

By use case, I think you mean the size of the potential audience. Would it make sense to get paid per listener? Sure it does, so let's make a calculation: Take how much you make on selling a single track on a RF library, and compare it to how many Spotify plays the money is equivalent to. Then you can really decide if the RF deal is good value or not.

P.S: My rough calculation is 15USD (Standard rate on Pond5) is about 3.4k plays on Spotify, so this is the number of individual plays being sold per user.


----------



## Erick - BVA (Jan 17, 2020)

Bullersten said:


> If I had a skateboard company for example, would I charge for a specific board one price to a teenage customer going to ride it at the local park, and a premium price for a pro that will be using it on a TV documentary. Possibly not, because the pro can buy it from the local kid I just sold it to...



I agree with your other points, but this is just wrong. 
The kid cannot sell it to another buyer. He only bought a license from you. You still own the rights to the music. So it would be illegal for him to sell it to a higher bidder.


----------



## Bullersten (Jan 17, 2020)

Sibelius19 said:


> I agree with your other points, but this is just wrong.
> The kid cannot sell it to another buyer. He only bought a license from you. You still own the rights to the music. So it would be illegal for him to sell it to a higher bidder.



You are right, my analogy of skateboards and music broadcasting rights is clearly not the best =;] But I think your understood the thinking behind it which is the important bit.


----------



## BartonFink (Feb 25, 2020)

Madrigal said:


> The problem arises when a subscription service isn't tiered. This means Nike with their 10 million dollar budget TV Ad pays the same thing as a youtuber with 10 followers.



This is the core issue that many ignore. And any composer who’s worked with big brands or pitched for commercials, met commercial directors or had their music licensed by these top tier clients knows how incredibly valuable music is to their campaigns.

It’s also a reason why they most probably wouldn’t go to the likes of Artlist, as usually, they’re looking for something extremely honed and every second made to order. They actually want to spend $25k on music because they want something on brand and made to brief.

However, when they want a chart song or fall in love with a library track, the publishers will negotiate a large worthy license fee and Nike would be happy to secure it. Artlist composers have to be extremely careful of this. If Coca Cola likes your track, your music is probably in the worst hands for a deal like that.

Ive been on both sides of the coin. Direct licensing sites and written for almost all the top shelf libraries over the past 10 years. It’s really incomparable. The big libraries invest so much time and money in production and sales. The deals they cut can be incredible and they actually pay you to write.

There is without a doubt a place for the likes of artlist and congrats to the composers who have made good money and contacts out of it. But if this music is going anywhere other than social media and YouTube creators videos, you’re losing income. I hope the backend and split is good because these tv clients will be laughing at how cheap this music is.

I would really advise composers to aim higher. I’m sure artlist have good intentions, but if you start writing for production companies’/networks personally owned libraries, the contacts and money you make out there is extremely good.

I’ll say it again. I know a Composer duo who made £9million and growing in backend from a five year ad campaign in the UK. Hold onto your rights and read your contracts thoroughly.


----------



## Michael Smith (Feb 26, 2020)

Kyle Preston said:


> Thank you for the kind words @CGR .
> 
> I have my work in 41 libraries, a few exclusive, most non, so I'm not saying this naively -- Artlist has been by _far_ the best. Undoubtedly, my opinion is biased so take it with a grain of salt.



Can you say if we're talking two figures monthly, three, or four? I've read their contract and I didn't see anything prohibiting this.

Anyway, your profiles at some of the major players (there are only really 5, max 10 worth using), show very few sales, which means "by far the best" doesn't necessarily mean too much.

As you say, you have more "artist" music than production music, which can explain lower sales at the big production music sites.

As I have 10,000+ sales at those sites, and make a living from them, it's interesting to know if Artlist sales are ACTUALLY good (while risking eliminating sales at the other sites), or just better than $0.

I don't mean to offend with this reply, but "by far the best" means something very different to someone with very few sales from the big RF sites, than to someone who sells for 4-5 figures monthly.


----------



## Michael Smith (Feb 26, 2020)

Greg said:


> Makes sense, thanks anyway. Sorry to keep prodding you for info but I am really curious about them. Last question, what do they mean by "pre cleared for Youtube monetization?" Are you still able to have your tracks in a service like Adrev for content ID claims on users not signed up with Artlist?



"Pre cleared for YouTube monetization" means that no, you cannot have those tracks in a service like AdRev. Many of the sub sites see this as too much of a hassle for the mass downloaders.


----------



## Greg (Feb 26, 2020)

Michael Smith said:


> "Pre cleared for YouTube monetization" means that no, you cannot have those tracks in a service like AdRev. Many of the sub sites see this as too much of a hassle for the mass downloaders.



What a joke. Eventually one of these companies will launch an IPO and maybe then composers will realize they are being raped.


----------

