Instrumentals, Their Vocal Versions, and Multiple Libraries

[ChipD]

So, trolling through the archives here, the consensus among the veterans here is this: Even if you get a song in a non-exclusive library, treat it as exclusive and do not try to get the same song into multiple libraries.

Got it.

Now, how about this...If you get a deal with a library and they want only an instrumental version of your song (that has vocals) and you agree to a non-exclusive deal for the INSTRUMENTAL version of that song and you get an opportunity to place the VOCAL version of that same song in another library, should you do it? Or should you treat both versions as the same song and only put it in one library?

[DesireInspires]

If you go by the logic of the vets on here, the instrumental version should be in the same library as the song with vocals.

If you go by my logic, place all versions of a song with as many non-exclusive companies as possible. If a company wants exclusivity to a song, you can just make a new song unless the company pays you for the trouble of removing the music from non- exclusive companies.

Do what you feel is right.

[richmstudios]

Still trying to wrap my mind around the reason why one would want to treat a song in a NON-EXCLUSIVE library as exclusive, especially songs that have not yet been placed. Why not just do either what DesireInspires suggests or take the extra step and remove the song that gets signed exclusively from all other libraries it's in?

If somebody could explain (or be kind enough to point me to the forum thread) why we wouldn't want to place our songs in as many non-exclusive music libraries as possible, it would be very helpful.

Rich

[mazz]

There's no rule against putting a song in as many libraries as you would like to on a non-exclusive basis. But a little more thought into the arguments on both sides and a little research on the different libraries and their markets needs to be done. Anyone can come on a public forum and make blanket statements. Take everything you read on the internet, including this post, with a grain of salt.

The prudent thing to do, in my opinion, is to see what markets the different libraries serve. Some libraries serve only broadcast to a greater or lesser degree of market coverage. Some libraries cater to clients that prefer blanket licenses. Some do both.

One of the arguments against putting a song in multiple libraries is:

Library A and B both supply to the same market. Your song, with two different titles (non-exclusive libraries retitle your pieces) shows up in the hands of the music editor. Which publisher gets the placement? Does the editor even want to open that can of worms or do they move on to the next piece of the hundreds they have to choose from? Did you just lose that placement? If a license fee is at hand, does the client pay the publisher with the lower fee? If so, your piece just bid against itself and lost.

One of the reasons that some clients are becoming reticent about working with non-exclusive libraries is that they are paying blanket licenses and they only want to buy the music once. If the exact same piece shows up in two or three different libraries that they have paid for, they typically aren't very happy about it and it makes their job more difficult when it comes time to figure out who to attribute on the cue sheets.

An argument for multiple signings could be:

Library A serves broadcast and Library B serves clients that produce content that will never be broadcast such as corporate training videos, wedding videos, etc. (That's a huge market, BTW.) In this case, unless library B decides to start pitching to broadcast, there will never be any conflict. Now your music is available to a wider market audience. Always a good thing!!


There are many more scenarios for and against and those at the 2012 Road Rally hopefully made it to the panel that was done on this very subject. Enlightening to say the least.


I prefer a hybrid approach, I treat some non-exclusive deals as exclusive. Some music I retain complete copyright, sign non-exclusively to one library and pitch to other opps on my own (subject to the contract I have with the library, of course!! Read carefully). I have some exclusive deals as well with choice publishers. It's good to be diversified.

The choice is, of course, yours. But to simply go blindly into the fray is not advised, no matter what blanket statements and pronouncements some may make. Arm yourself with knowledge and be professional and businesslike in your dealings. That will take you far. Learn to think like the clients, learn their side of the business. To be composer-centric is to miss the bigger picture. Get to know these people and learn about their business and how it works and what part we as content providers play in it. We are not the center of the universe, even though as artists we might feel we should be. If we enter the business, we are one piece of the equation. An important piece, of course, without us there would be no music, but there are many more of us than the market need for us, so we must be humble and provide the best possible service on all levels.

Of course, this is all my opinion based on some experience. Please shoot holes in my thinking and let's discuss this. Feedback is a good thing!

Cheers!

Mazz

[Casey H]

Mazz and others covered the subject well.

I just want add emphasis on something that may or may not be clear. If you have the instrumental track for a song in any library (exclusive or non-exclusive), you cannot sign an exclusive somewhere else for the vocal version. That would be a contract violation. This question comes up from time to time and I've met songwriters who don't understand it.

Casey

[CrimsnSyrn]

If you have the instrumental track for a song in any library (exclusive or non-exclusive), you cannot sign an exclusive somewhere else for the vocal version. That would be a contract violation.

Seeking further clarification, please: Would it not be the same for a vocal song in any library, and trying to sign an exclusive somewhere else for the instrumental version?

Thanks,

Juliet

[Casey H]

If you have the instrumental track for a song in any library (exclusive or non-exclusive), you cannot sign an exclusive somewhere else for the vocal version. That would be a contract violation.

Seeking further clarification, please: Would it not be the same for a vocal song in any library, and trying to sign an exclusive somewhere else for the instrumental version?

Thanks,

Juliet

Yes.... Works both ways... Thanks for asking for clarification!

The reason I thought of it the way I did is some of us have signed backing tracks as instrumentals with a non-exclusive library that's a popular Taxi client.

Casey

[DesireInspires]

Still trying to wrap my mind around the reason why one would want to treat a song in a NON-EXCLUSIVE library as exclusive, especially songs that have not yet been placed. Why not just do either what DesireInspires suggests or take the extra step and remove the song that gets signed exclusively from all other libraries it's in?

If somebody could explain (or be kind enough to point me to the forum thread) why we wouldn't want to place our songs in as many non-exclusive music libraries as possible, it would be very helpful.

Rich

ANSWER: Composers treat each track as exclusive to avoid having their music compete against itself in different libraries.

I myself encourage the practice of having tracks compete against themselves. I like having a song in as many libraries as possible. The more stores my songs are in, the greater chances I have of making money. I don't get concerned about how my song is used as long as I get paid for the usage.

Some people treat their music catalog as if it were couture level fashion sold exclusively at designated boutiques. I treat my music as a high quality commodity that needs to be in as many stores as I can have it placed in. I don't worry about reputation or prestige.

I am building my catalog the same way Starbucks and McDonalds build stores: flood the market!

[Casey H]

...I don't worry about reputation or prestige...

Well you finally posted something I agree with, DI!!

Casey

[DesireInspires]

...I don't worry about reputation or prestige...

Well you finally posted something I agree with, DI!!

Casey

Now that we see eye to eye, we can finally take over the world together!