# Paying to submit music...do you do it?



## ryst (Aug 17, 2016)

I get emails from Film Music Magazine regarding licensing/placement opportunities. If you're not a member (which is $11.95 a month), it's $5.99 per music file submitted. If you are a member, it's $1.99 per music file submitted. This is just an example of what I've seen with different companies.

Do any of you participate in this practice of paying money to submit your music for licensing opportunities? Or is it a waste of time & money?

Just curious. I've never paid to submit my music and my gut tells me it's not worth it. But I'm fine with being wrong. Thoughts?


----------



## JohnG (Aug 18, 2016)

I don't know if it's a good idea or not, but I thought we had another thread about this issue and the few who posted about their experiences indicated that they had not had much result. I could be mistaken but I think that's what the gist was.

I don't know how hard this is today, but trying to develop a contact at a major music library is another way to go. Many will state they don't want submissions but if you know someone who knows someone to vouch for you, you might have a better chance. Also, some of the people at those libraries are pretty rough, some are more approachable. They are just people, though, and maybe if you adopt the right stance with them, they will at least talk about what they are looking for or what process _would_ work for a submission.

I would think that would be time better spent than paying to get a placement, but I bow to others' experience.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Aug 18, 2016)

Don't pay to play.


----------



## jonnybutter (Aug 18, 2016)

I would guess it depends on who you are paying. None of us likes the idea, but I wouldn't say it's indefensible as a rule. I submit - judiciously I hope - to Taxi listings, which cost $5/per, and have signed with some good publishers as a result - publishers it would have been very hard to find, much less meet, on my own. I have seen some other such sites I would be wary of. 

If you can do it without some sort of 'agent', bully for you. I had a full and quite diversified roster of clients in the 80s and 90s that mostly disappeared in the early aughts, so I had to start almost completely over. I guess if you live in LA, have written to picture for years, etc. you don't need to do it. I never had to before, but..c'est la vie.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Aug 18, 2016)

If you have the money to spare, it shouldn't be an issue. If you are struggling to keep the lights on, pay your light bill.

But realize that it is a business. A business where there will be many losers (most composers) and only a few winners (the company getting paid and a handful of composers). Choose carefully. That $5 adds up!


----------



## gsilbers (Aug 18, 2016)

in general no. but film music magazine submissions helps producers and directors as well. or anyone looking to get the word out that they need specific music for their project. or a new library that got hold of a big project and needs new talent.
on the other hand, its a clusterfuk. I had to create a submission and I got a gazillion tracks from a whole bunch of people that I don't think they read my whole post through. the tracks ranged from happy house edm to epic trailer music. so I am guessing its the same for every submission. most were great sounding stuff, most is not the style I needed.

in this case the way film music mag is doing it is a little more like helping out ...and getting paid for it. its more general.
but I think it might turn more and more this way but for regular libraries. if tv production demand to have the publishing or like how jingle punks is giving part of their publishing away, then libraries might have to charge an upfront fee to cover costs to be able to compete.
Seeing my experience when I created the submission in film music mag I can see why its happening . supply of music is incredibly high. and if you think its all crap, then you will have to learn for yourself, because there is great stuff out there. And a lot of it. And no one is seeing one another. only seeing how $$ for music just goes down and down and blaming it on other things.


----------



## jonnybutter (Aug 18, 2016)

gsilbers said:


> I got a gazillion tracks from a whole bunch of people that I don't think they read my whole post through. the tracks ranged from happy house edm to epic trailer music. so I am guessing its the same for every submission. most were great sounding stuff, most is not the style I needed.



I think this is the main problem. Yes, there's a ton of music out there, and plenty of good music too. But time is money - who is going to sift through it all? And it is an almost complete waste of time to have to wade through tracks that are not even close to what you need; there will be enough tracks to sift through that _are _close to what you want. 

Taxi screens the music, and they do it pretty stringently if that's what the client wants, so that's their value-add for the publishers/libraries. On the writer's side, it's up to you whether it makes economic sense or not. If I was submitting hundreds of tracks per year for screening, it would might make me think twice. But I am judicious - I submit carefully, and only about 30 per year.

It's a different world, business-wise, from when I started out, but it's also not so different in some ways. You still need to find your niche of good clients, and when you do, you tend to work with them over and over. And although there is a lot of music out there which is properly produced, mixed, etc., a whole lot of it sounds the same, at least to my ear; IOW, quality is still something clients have to, and generally will, pay for.


----------



## rgames (Aug 18, 2016)

It's simple: offer to pay a portion of what you make through the opportunities they provide.

Does their lead give you a $1000 payday? Then you'll gladly pay $100, not just $5.

A legitimate business will agree to such an arrangement. Anyone else is not worth dealing with.

rgames


----------



## AllanH (Aug 18, 2016)

as a basic principle, there is nothing wrong with paying for professional representation. I'm certainly expected to pay for my attorney even if I don't close a deal, the doctor even if he doesn't diagnose anything etc.

The problem is what you get for your money: I find it highly unlikely that your e.g. $12/mo gets you anything. This simply, by definition, cannot be professional representation. You might as well pay $12 to get in the yellow pages under "composer" 

Only if you can _confirm _that they provide something of value should you consider paying for representation.

My two cents without having any direct experience with Film Music Magazine (which might very well be a professional organization).


----------



## Baron Greuner (Aug 19, 2016)

$5 sounds like a chain letter. It just doesn't sound feasible. It sounds like $5 is easily affordable to most people, ergo send us in 30000 $5 bills.


----------



## mc_deli (Aug 19, 2016)

no


----------

