# Working for a music library. What irritates you?



## AC986 (May 15, 2014)

As above.


----------



## Daryl (May 15, 2014)

Corporate greed, inefficiency, incompetence, lack of knowledge, laziness.....


----------



## pkm (May 15, 2014)

The disappearance of sync fees


----------



## wonshu (May 15, 2014)

The disappearance of performance royalties.

The disappearance of fair compensation.


----------



## Stephen Rees (May 15, 2014)

Daryl @ Thu May 15 said:


> inefficiency, incompetence, lack of knowledge, laziness.....



Coincidently, this is what the the library music business finds irritating about me.


----------



## Stephen Rees (May 15, 2014)

I get irritated by my tracks being registered to the wrong Stephen Rees on the PRS database. I don't really know how it happens ('why didn't you use the CAE number I gave you? You know, the unique one that identified me uniquely so that you can't possibly ever ever register it to the wrong person?').

I'm seriously considering changing my name to Zeberdee Aardvark to avoid this problem....

Other than that, if I get excessively irritated on a job I don't tend to work with the library again. Life is too short, and there are too many other lovely people to work with.


----------



## rgames (May 15, 2014)

For me it's not just the music library business but the entire music for media business - I just don't care for how business is done in the media world. Too much exploitation. Granted, it's full of people willing to be exploited and I fault them as much as anyone else.

My background is in the community of professional live performers and I cherish that community - even though I have a day job outside the music world my closest friends (and wife!) are people I have met within the community of professional musicians. My closest relationships were forged within that community and remain intact to this day.

But the music for media community? Not so much... It appears to have a set of norms that don't suit me.

rgames


----------



## Valérie_D (May 15, 2014)

I'm babystepping my way through non-exclusive libraries, don't change the thread on my account but...any comments on what you like about working with libraries are most welcome!


----------



## RiffWraith (May 15, 2014)

Stephen Rees @ Fri May 16 said:


> I get irritated by my tracks being registered to the wrong Stephen Rees on the PRS database. I don't really know how it happens ('why didn't you use the CAE number I gave you? You know, the unique one that identified me uniquely so that you can't possibly ever ever register it to the wrong person?').



Fortunately for me, with a name like Jeffrey Hayat, the chances of that happening are practically nill :lol:


----------



## Daryl (May 15, 2014)

Valérie_D @ Thu May 15 said:


> I'm babystepping my way through non-exclusive libraries, don't change the thread on my account but...any comments on what you like about working with libraries are most welcome!


No evening working, no weekend working, no stupid deadlines, reasonable earnings without having to work too hard, easy to take time off without losing money...

D


----------



## AC986 (May 16, 2014)

Valérie_D @ Thu May 15 said:


> I'm babystepping my way through non-exclusive libraries, don't change the thread on my account but...any comments on what you like about working with libraries are most welcome!



Encouragement for me. I like to get encouragement from the people that run things. I like to be put onto the right track and not just write any old thing that may well (or not) sound any good, but ultimately won't really sell.
In your mind, you have to always be thinking this is a sales game. A long term business and each of your tracks should go out there and have a life. Writing stuff that is not focused or musical navel gazing is a waste of time. Unfocused writing makes up a very large part of what sits in a lot of music libraries and I think it's worth remembering that someone down the line has to try and sell it somehow.

What irritates me is having to scrap tracks that have taken a while but then do not conform to the above.


----------



## AC986 (May 16, 2014)

RiffWraith @ Thu May 15 said:


> Fortunately for me, with a name like Jeffrey Hayat, the chances of that happening are practically nill :lol:



Plantagenet name! Run for your lives! >8o


----------



## Stephen Rees (May 16, 2014)

RiffWraith @ Thu May 15 said:


> Stephen Rees @ Fri May 16 said:
> 
> 
> > I get irritated by my tracks being registered to the wrong Stephen Rees on the PRS database. I don't really know how it happens ('why didn't you use the CAE number I gave you? You know, the unique one that identified me uniquely so that you can't possibly ever ever register it to the wrong person?').
> ...



I envy you Jeffrey. I think at last count there were about 18 different Stephen Rees composers registered at the PRS


----------



## doctornine (May 16, 2014)

I once got Jonah Sharp's PRS by mistake  I kind of wonder how he's getting of mine these days ?

~o)


----------



## Stephen Rees (May 16, 2014)

It has an upside. Whenever anyone says one of my pieces is crappy I just say one of the other Stephen Reeses wrote it.


----------



## Daryl (May 16, 2014)

adriancook @ Fri May 16 said:


> Unfocused writing makes up a very large part of what sits in a lot of music libraries and I think it's worth remembering that someone down the line has to try and sell it somehow.


There are two side to that though.

At some point a writer will have more experience than the people commissioning the music, and assuming that they are able to remain reasonably objective about the product it is right that they should over-rule them on occasion. I have done that three times in the last few years, and each time the track concerned has made many £K and been the most successful (in a financial sense) track on the album.

D


----------



## AC986 (May 16, 2014)

Daryl @ Fri May 16 said:


> adriancook @ Fri May 16 said:
> 
> 
> > Unfocused writing makes up a very large part of what sits in a lot of music libraries and I think it's worth remembering that someone down the line has to try and sell it somehow.
> ...



That's down to your experience and expertise Daryl. A lot of newer library contributors may not be there just yet. But only three times could be construed as 'not many' although I stand to be corrected. :D


----------



## RiffWraith (May 16, 2014)

Stephen Rees @ Fri May 16 said:


> RiffWraith @ Thu May 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Stephen Rees @ Fri May 16 said:
> ...



Just checked ASCAP - one JH here!


----------



## SDCP (May 16, 2014)

It irritates me that they want publishing rights. This is the biggest scam going. That's why I don't write for any library unless I retain the publishing rights. 

Think about it, we do ALL of the work to create a piece of music, and some shyster comes along and says, I didn't create that piece but I demand 50% of your sync and direct license fees, and all of the publishing.

These library suits are nothing but thieves. Don't write for them unless you retain publishing rights. (I know, I know, most of you are saying that you won't get any work that way. But if we keep bending over for these con-men, then we all suffer in the long run.)


----------



## pkm (May 16, 2014)

SDCP @ Fri May 16 said:


> It irritates me that they want publishing rights. This is the biggest scam going. That's why I don't write for any library unless I retain the publishing rights.
> 
> Think about it, we do ALL of the work to create a piece of music, and some shyster comes along and says, I didn't create that piece but I demand 50% of your sync and direct license fees, and all of the publishing.
> 
> These library suits are nothing but thieves. Don't write for them unless you retain publishing rights. (I know, I know, most of you are saying that you won't get any work that way. But if we keep bending over for these con-men, then we all suffer in the long run.)



Worse when they want a piece of your writers... I mean, if it's exclusive, that "shyster" is the only one exploiting the copyright for you while you sit back and collect royalties.


----------



## MichaelL (May 16, 2014)

SDCP @ Fri May 16 said:


> It irritates me that they want publishing rights. This is the biggest scam going. That's why I don't write for any library unless I retain the publishing rights.
> 
> Think about it, we do ALL of the work to create a piece of music, and some shyster comes along and says, I didn't create that piece but I demand 50% of your sync and direct license fees, and all of the publishing.
> 
> These library suits are nothing but thieves. Don't write for them unless you retain publishing rights. (I know, I know, most of you are saying that you won't get any work that way. But if we keep bending over for these con-men, then we all suffer in the long run.)




I'm not exactly sure to which business model you are referring. 

Under the traditional, pre non-exclusive, work for hire business model, the library IS the publisher. 

Even under the new non-exclusive, think Jingle Punks model, the library IS the publisher. That's how they make money.

The only model that I can think of in which the composer retains publishing is the royalty free market. 

What you are saying is something like "the problem with farmers is that they grow vegetables." Yes, that's what they do. What is it that you think libraries do, or should do, if not publish?


----------



## JohnG (May 16, 2014)

SDCP @ 16th May 2014 said:


> It irritates me that they want publishing rights. This is the biggest scam going. That's why I don't write for any library unless I retain the publishing rights.
> 
> Think about it, we do ALL of the work to create a piece of music, and some shyster comes along and says, I didn't create that piece but I demand 50% of your sync and direct license fees, and all of the publishing.
> 
> These library suits are nothing but thieves. Don't write for them unless you retain publishing rights. (I know, I know, most of you are saying that you won't get any work that way. But if we keep bending over for these con-men, then we all suffer in the long run.)



Hmm.

When I write music for a studio or network, they take all the publishing, yet they never, as far as I know, spend energy marketing the music I've written for them and help me to earn future sync fees or royalties from it.

The libraries with whom I've worked, by contrast, do exactly that, and pay many tens of thousands of dollars, sometimes years after the composition was created, to their composers. Plus, they often pay very substantial amounts up front to record with live musicians, and pay engineers to mix and master the tracks. Some pay healthy up-front creative fees.

So I have to say, the publishing seems very fair to me as a trade-off. In fact, I view the relationship as going into business together; if they make money, I make money. I like that symbiosis.

In my experience, they are neither "thieves" nor "con-men." If one doesn't like the deal, one is under no obligation to take it.


----------



## wonshu (May 16, 2014)

The biggest shame is, that the "young" generation doesn't realize what and to what extent performance royalties happen. They just give it away. Sometimes without even being a member of a performance rights organisation.

And who knows if the music library shysters don't register the works and suck out all the performance royalties.

It eludes me, that people would trust these companies more than the PROs that are an association of actual composers.

rant over.


----------



## RiffWraith (May 16, 2014)

MichaelL @ Fri May 16 said:


> SDCP @ Fri May 16 said:
> 
> 
> > It irritates me that they want publishing rights. This is the biggest scam going. That's why I don't write for any library unless I retain the publishing rights.
> ...



That's correct. The lib makes money from publishing, and the writer makes money from writer's. There are sync fees too sometimes for exclusives, but those too - as are the royalties - are split 50/50. 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course, but I really don't understand how any composer would think they should retain publishing to their work when they hand that work over to someone else. 

Cheers.


----------



## MichaelL (May 16, 2014)

wonshu @ Fri May 16 said:


> The biggest shame is, that the "young" generation doesn't realize what and to what extent performance royalties happen. They just give it away. Sometimes without even being a member of a performance rights organisation.
> 
> And who knows if the music library shysters don't register the works and suck out all the performance royalties.
> 
> ...




You MUST be more specific when you say "these companies." Without giving you a library business 101 primer, you do not seem to understand, or differentiate between, the variety of business models and levels that operate under the very broad term "library."

The practices to which SDCP, and you are referring occur mostly in companies that would be more properly, from a legal perspective, be called licensing agents. There is a vast difference.


----------



## Daryl (May 16, 2014)

adriancook @ Fri May 16 said:


> Daryl @ Fri May 16 said:
> 
> 
> > At some point a writer will have more experience than the people commissioning the music, and assuming that they are able to remain reasonably objective about the product it is right that they should over-rule them on occasion. I have done that three times in the last few years, and each time the track concerned has made many £K and been the most successful (in a financial sense) track on the album.
> ...


True, but when considers the magnitude of the mistake that they could have made, it does mean that they have to be challenged from time to time.

FWIW I've always taken the view that any changes or additions that I'm asked for are just suggestions. If I don't agree, I don't do them. They always have the change to reject a track. Of course they then take the risk that it will make loads of money for another Publisher. :wink: 

D


----------



## Daryl (May 16, 2014)

SDCP @ Fri May 16 said:


> It irritates me that they want publishing rights. This is the biggest scam going. That's why I don't write for any library unless I retain the publishing rights.


Yeah, a Publisher that wants Publishing rights. Shocker.

Um, if they don't get Publishing rights, how are they supposed to make any money?

D


----------



## Daryl (May 16, 2014)

JohnG @ Fri May 16 said:


> When I write music for a studio or network, they take all the publishing, yet they never, as far as I know, spend energy marketing the music I've written for them and help me to earn future sync fees or royalties from it.


Yes, in spite of what the contract usually says for 3rd party Publishing. The only saving grace is that you've been paid to write the stuff, and presumably they have paid production costs, so they own the recordings. Still sticks in the craw though.

D


----------



## AC986 (May 16, 2014)

SDCP @ Fri May 16 said:


> It irritates me that they want publishing rights. This is the biggest scam going. That's why I don't write for any library unless I retain the publishing rights.
> 
> Think about it, we do ALL of the work to create a piece of music, and some shyster comes along and says, I didn't create that piece but I demand 50% of your sync and direct license fees, and all of the publishing.
> 
> These library suits are nothing but thieves. Don't write for them unless you retain publishing rights. (I know, I know, most of you are saying that you won't get any work that way. But if we keep bending over for these con-men, then we all suffer in the long run.)



Don't understand any of that. Anyone in particular you are referring to? :|


----------



## MichaelL (May 16, 2014)

adriancook @ Fri May 16 said:


> Don't understand any of that. Anyone in particular you are referring to? :|



Adrian...I think he's referring to companies that aren't really libraries, but rather licensing agents. They don't operate they way traditional libraries do.

Sometimes people who come from other backgrounds, or who haven't been in the business for a long time, don't understand the nuances that distinguish the various business models. 

Examples of the licensing agent model would be Jingle Punks and ScoreKeepers. They make money by aggregating a large number of cues, which they distribute blanket to television networks, with _gratis_ blanket licenses, solely to collect performance royalties. Reality and cable TV are prime sources of income for such libraries.


----------



## vimonster (May 16, 2014)

Some libraries are better than others, but saying libraries rip you off is a bit like saying:

I have this really cool product and this shyster wants to take a cut to sell it in his 40,000 stores globally which would make me really rich!

Or

I make cars but this shyster wants to open a dealership in a place I have never been and split the revenue with me. Oh my god!

If it wasn't for libraries I would have sold about two licenses by now instead of a few thousand.

As for what irritates:
Registering tracks with the wrong CAE - how, how, HOW can this be SO hard?
Not replying for 3 months and then asking for something to be rustled up over the weekend.


----------



## Stephen Rees (May 17, 2014)

vimonster @ Fri May 16 said:


> As for what irritates:
> Registering tracks with the wrong CAE - how, how, HOW can this be SO hard?


I'm relieved its not just me. 'How can you have registered my tracks to the wrong CAE? You even SPECIFICALLY ASKED ME FOR IT.'



> Not replying for 3 months and then asking for something to be rustled up over the weekend.


Ha Ha. I forgot that one


----------



## vimonster (May 17, 2014)

Stephen Rees @ Sat May 17 said:


> vimonster @ Fri May 16 said:
> 
> 
> > As for what irritates:
> ...



Haha, it wouldn't surprise me all that much if we were talking about the same library. Out of about seven libraries I've dealt with only one has ever got the CAE wrong, and they were the biggest sticklers for details and filling in forms.


----------



## Stephen Rees (May 17, 2014)

vimonster @ Sat May 17 said:


> Out of about seven libraries I've dealt with only one has ever got the CAE wrong, and they were the biggest sticklers for details and filling in forms.



I think I have worked with about the same number of libraries, and four of them at one point or another have registered my tracks to the wrong Stephen Rees.

I should have added that to the 'Advice for Working in the Library Biz' thread….

Always check your tracks are registered correctly (to the extent that you can). The registrations DO go wrong sometimes and it is a bit irksome when..............after writing your demos, contacting your library clients, securing the gig, writing your album, rewriting your album, doing 50 billion edits and a gazillion different versions, supplying all the information about what keys they are in, BPMs, maybe even writing the copy for the track descriptions, signing the contracts, providing stems, providing additional versions that the client suddenly thought might be useful, waiting for 6 months for the album to be released, waiting for another year or two or three for the first royalties to come in……………………….your royalties are all set up to go to someone else.

But no worries because they are a publisher so they have rigorous checks in place to ensure that they publish music and register it correctly right? A simple quick check after tracks have been registered that they have been entered correctly? Weekly or monthly checks that all is well? Publishing is one of the key parts of their business so it absolutely has to be spot on correct - all the i's dotted, all the t's crossed right?

Nope.

Also, curiously enough, they never get their own part of the registration wrong. They always get their own CAE perfectly absolutely 100% correct all of the time.

I can tell you that I find that a bit irritating


----------

