Contract Seems Unfair - Thoughts?

[crashgates]

.

[Telefunkin]

Actually Peter and Casey, This is my personal impression/POV/Take on sync biz contract thing

The service you are paying for; is the possibility to be lead/introduced/A&R'ed, however you want to look at it, into an agency agreement with a library or from a legal stand point is really your new appointed sales agent. Who's job/service is then to on-sell your music to a video/tv/film production company for a direct cost to YOU of 50% commission of your royalties plus your up front $200+ fee to Taxi

I don't know about you or your personal motivations/expectations/valuation approach, and I appreciate some out their may not see it the way I do, and that's all good too, but if my impression is even vaguely close to reality. I would personally would have a really hard time convincing anyone, and least of all myself, this is value for your money.

However on the flip side, it's educational value is priceless and so far still free I believe for anyone

The main Taxi promise is to forward your music to music libraries provided it is suitable and good enough quality. The better the suitability and quality of your music, the more chance there is of that happening, along with everything else that might follow. Its as simple as that really.

Taxi has nothing to do with what happens beyond the 'forward', including any contract details. Similarly, the library has nothing to do with recouping Taxi membership fees.

There are LOADS of examples of talented folk who got deals pretty quickly because they already knew what they were doing, or they quickly learned what it takes (from education that Taxi also offers) and suddenly strode ahead. Some took a little longer but still got there. For all of them, Taxi delivered what it promised. If you were to ask those people they'd probably consider Taxi to be good value for money because they got what they wanted.

There are also LOADS of people who didn't get what they imagined they would when they joined. Why is that when every member has access to the same Taxi listings and all the supporting education/videos/rally etc? Taxi still delivered what it promised, so logically, you can't possibly blame Taxi, but those that don't get what they wanted are more likely to say its poor value for money. The saying 'YMMV' is highly appropriate.

[crashgates]

.

[Casey H]

#DLTDHYOTWO

[Paulie]

...if my impression is even vaguely close to reality. I would personally would have a really hard time convincing anyone, and least of all myself, this is value for your money.

Taxi is a matchmaker and educaitonal platform. The goal, like you stated, is to introduce your music to libraries and supervisors. You pay the $5 per track, this plus membership fees is where Taxi gets its revenue. They get no slice of the pie once you are connected to their clients. Those clients then ingest your music and hopefully place it. These libraries have the relationships with tv/film music personnel, and like any agent in sports or entertainment, they get their cut. I'm not a fan of 50%, but it is what it is. One alternataive is for you to try to find the actual musical decision makers and then pitch your music directly. Good luck with that... 99.9% of them don't have the time or trust to deal with unvetted resources and personalies. The value proposition Taxi offers its clients is that they are pre-screening music so that the musical decision makers have a batch of quality music to review. It saves them time. Taxi shields its clients from the dirth of really crappy music out there that some people submit that has no business being submitted in the first place.

I guess it all comes down to what your musical goals are.

[crashgates]

.

[Paulie]

I have no idea what that creepy meme is... can someone provide context so I can figure out if I'm being mocked or agreed with?

[Casey H]

It's Oliver Anthony whose song,"Rich Men North of Richmond", was a major viral hit. Crashgates is obsessed with becoming a Billboard charting artist following the same one in a million path.

The constant posting of his picture is annoying as heck and I wish it would stop.

[crashgates]

.

[Casey H]

(1) He writes his own songs.

(2) Artists and their management will not listen to unsolicited song pitches. They will only listen to songs from trusted sources- mainly publishers and music attorneys. That's because the potential for being sued is so great. Part of being liable for a copyright violation is having had access to hear the song you are being accused of copying. So if they listen to someone's demo and don't have interest in it, they can end up sued by some unknown who swears that some notes or words in the song were lifted from their demo, true or not. With all the good trusted sources they have, why would they even take a chance? And again, this guy is a songwriter who writes his own songs.

(3) Your song, performance, and demo is very poor (not being rude, just truthful). Not gonna impress anyone with it. Even if someone important listened, they'd click it off in 10 seconds. I don't' think you 'get' how high the bar is for a song demo in today's world-- the writing, and the entire production.

There are people here, including myself, that would love to help you as much as we can. But since you reject the idea of years of very hard work, there's really nothing we can do. If you ever want advice other than the lottery ticket kind, let us know.

Best,
Casey