A positive perspective on retitling

[Cruciform]

Vaughn Johnson has an interesting reply to the criticisms of retitling.

http://musiclibraryreport.com/music-ret ... -retitler/

[guscave]

Always good to hear the different sides of the argument. Especially when it's coming from a well-respected library.

[billg1]

This is a timely discussion for me. Everything on my ASCAP statement is a result of non-exclusives & recently I have received another good placment and a decent check for another . . . at the same time I've signed some tracks to a good exclusive and have heard the claims of "blacklisting" etc. So really, am I supposed to tell the folks at the libraries where I'm getting placements to remove my tracks? It's really a tough spot to be in. On the one hand the exclusive situation may or may not result in placements & I'm starting to see real progress from a couple of the non-exclusives . . . I'd really prefer not to be "blacklisted" . . .

I can understand the points made on each side, I'm very conflicted.

[Casey H]

If you sign an exclusive on a song and it's in non-exclusive libraries, that would be entering a contract dishonestly. So if I wanted to sign an exclusive I would remove the tracks from the non-exclusive libs if I could or else I wouldn't sign. That is unless I disclosed it and the exclusive libary was OK with the exception. I've heard of that happening.

Recently I had to turn down an exclusive offer from an excellent library that I got thru a Taxi listing. I could have pulled the track from the non-exclusive library but it's a library that has made a lot of placements for me so I decided not to.

I think the big issue here is not whether non-exclusive re-title libraries are bad, it's whether or not we should sign the same tracks with multiple non-exclusive libraries. That is where the concern seems to lie-- a music sup getting the same tracks from different sources, hard discs out there from dozens of libraries with 10,000 tracks on each but the same tracks are on multiple drives. (Hard drives being just one way libraries pitch catalogs).

Many composers put their songs in many libraries with the thought that the more they sign the better the chance of placement. The problem is what does that do to the industry as a whole? Is this practice digging us a grave in the long run? When not signing with multiple libraries, it's easy to feel like an athlete who refuses to take steroids while everyone else in the league does.

I have heard that some major networks are only accepting tracks now from exclusive libraries. So obviously they have real concern about duplication and issues over who really owns the music. One non-exclusive library I work with is changing their model to exclusive because of that, though tracks already signed as non-exclusive are being grandfathered as such. A well known library that Taxi works closely with had a problem with one of the major networks and was able to strike a compromise by naming all their tracks with the original title plus a tag that ID's it as theirs (e.g. "The Sun Shines XYZ001")...

Casey

[billg1]

Casey, the way I understood the "blacklisted" comment was (someone correct me if they understood it another way) . . .

The major networks that have decided to use only exclusive tracks "may" blacklist a writer that they discover has tracks signed to a non-exclusive retitle library. So, as a safety measure, even if you've never duplicated track placements or never been dishonest in any exclusive dealings you will still be on the s%&t list because you have tracks that are in a non-exclusive situation.

[Casey H]

Hey Bill
I never heard of blacklisting that way with respect to writers just because they have tracks in non-exclusive libraries. From my understanding (which could be wrong) what they care about is with regard to the specific track, that it can come from one and only one source. So, if there is a blacklist it would be writers who they find place the same track in multiple libraries as well as libraries who pitch those tracks... e.g. if a conflict arises, both writer and library may be out. (Again, there is a lot I don't know)...

Also, the more likely scenario is for networks to simply not deal with non-exclusive libraries so there should never be a conflict over ownership claim. I'm assuming that people are not signing exclusives with tracks that are also in non-exclusives-- in that situtation the writer is committing fraud. If I was an end user and encountered THAT situation I'd certainly not want to work with that writer again.

Casey

[Cruciform]

Casey, apart from the contractual breach situation of signing exclusive deals over tracks already in non-exclusive libraries, all the other issues you touched on were given responses by Vaughn in that article. Whatever one decides for themselves, I felt it was worthwhile presenting an alternate viewpoint from a respected librarian.

[Casey H]

Yes definitely Rob... I don't think I implied otherwise. I very much appreciated reading Vaughn's perspective.

Best,
Casey

[mojobone]

The word, 'blacklisting' tends to imply that a list is circulated among a cabal of music supervisors; it seems to me that the more likely scenario is that each production house keeps its own list. That should help limit the damage, in the event of any conflict. My opinion, best practice is to sign a track only once, unless there's a very compelling reason.

[Cruciform]

Casey, no worries, I haven't come to a final conclusion on this myself though I am currently treating all new tracks exclusively.