Retitling

[DavRom]

in an interview Randy Thornton, Chairman of the Production Music Association (PMA) said, "We have been very vocal about the destructive nature of “retitling” of musical works..."

please share your ideas, pro or con, on the practice of retitling

Opportunities, Challenges & Threats: Production Music at a Crossroads

thx!

[DesireInspires]

Retitling = A gift from above.

[DavRom]

then why this:

I have signed about 40 new songs with a handful of exclusive libraries since the new year. I am just going to focus on adding more tracks to these companies. I am glad that I started to transition to working with these companies. If I had only been working with non-exclusive companies up to this point, I would feel very, very, very sad & frustrated right now.

The business is changing, but it is still exciting!

[hummingbird]

I treat every situation as though it is exclusive. So if I sign a piece to a non-exclusive, retitling deal, I consider it exclusive.

[DesireInspires]

then why this:

I have signed about 40 new songs with a handful of exclusive libraries since the new year. I am just going to focus on adding more tracks to these companies. I am glad that I started to transition to working with these companies. If I had only been working with non-exclusive companies up to this point, I would feel very, very, very sad & frustrated right now.

The business is changing, but it is still exciting!

Because I get money from both.

Money.

[fusilierb]

Retitling was created so that you could retain all the non-braodcast rights to your music (i.e., sell it yourself on albums and online and at shows and on and on) AND get a publisher to push those tracks for you for placement in TV and film. It was NOT created so that you could take one track and sign it to a ton of publishers who are all pushing it to the same small pool of TV and film folks. Which is what ended up happening.

The big fish no longer like it and want to know that a song is truly cleared with one publisher.
I work with retitled libraries, but don't treat them like that. One piece, one publisher. I think it's the way to go. It's clean, and its starting to become a requirement to get certain typres of placements. Others disagree. That is their right. But lot's of libraries who used to disagree are suddenly creating exclusive libraries. Ask yourself why?

One piece, one publisher. One writer/one pusher. Nice and clean. The industry is in flux, so its kind of up to you to decide how to present yourself, but I predict the longer we move into the future the more the exclusive model will serve everyone's best interests.

[mojobone]

What Bryan said.

[stevecollom]

.

[brentmagstadt]

It was NOT created so that you could take one track and sign it to a ton of publishers who are all pushing it to the same small pool of TV and film folks. Which is what ended up happening.

I'm dealing with a pub at the moment who turned out to be totally offensive, despite appearing inoffensive at the beginning. He re-titled the tracks I submitted to him (he didn't even review them, just took them, blanket acceptance), and he registered on my PRO for full pub, when the agreement was a pub split (yes, I have the signed contract, and yes, I have called him on it - we'll see if it escalates).

Since this event I have never worked with anyone who retitles - not only because I'm having a bad experience with this guy, but also for the very valid reasons above. For any of my stuff out there now that's retitled (not much), I consider it a wash, and I won't touch/submit those tracks again. I'll just write more; that's easier.

I'm in this to make $$, yes; but more than that, I value integrity in the context of this business. I'm being very concious of who I work with these days. The good people float to the top, and I'm feeling lucky to have connected with a few of them.

And - dare I mention this? - I acquired those connections thru... [wait for it...]: TAXI!

[Casey H]

It was NOT created so that you could take one track and sign it to a ton of publishers who are all pushing it to the same small pool of TV and film folks. Which is what ended up happening.

I'm dealing with a pub at the moment who turned out to be totally offensive, despite appearing inoffensive at the beginning. He re-titled the tracks I submitted to him (he didn't even review them, just took them, blanket acceptance), and he registered on my PRO for full pub, when the agreement was a pub split (yes, I have the signed contract, and yes, I have called him on it - we'll see if it escalates).

Since this event I have never worked with anyone who retitles - not only because I'm having a bad experience with this guy, but also for the very valid reasons above. For any of my stuff out there now that's retitled (not much), I consider it a wash, and I won't touch/submit those tracks again. I'll just write more; that's easier.

I'm in this to make $$, yes; but more than that, I value integrity in the context of this business. I'm being very concious of who I work with these days. The good people float to the top, and I'm feeling lucky to have connected with a few of them.

And - dare I mention this? - I acquired those connections thru... [wait for it...]: TAXI!

Obviously, the issue of whether a publisher is reputable or not is TOTALLY separate from whether or not they re-title or not. These are very unrelated items. It's important not to imply that if libraries re-title, they are non-reputable.

Sorry, you had a bad experience.

One thing I have to ask... just in case. Are you sure it was clear in the contract that the PUBLISHER'S share was to be split? The reason I ask is I've seen a lot of confusion with respect to contract wording the whole 200% pie thing... e.g. Every dollar of PRO is generally 50/50 between writer and publisher... 100% of writer's share = 50% of total pie, 100% of publisher's share = 50% of total, etc... In a deal whereby you get the writer's share and split the publishing, you would get 75% of every PRO dollar.

Some contracts simply say that PRO revenue will be split between writer and publisher. That refers to the standard 50/50 split mentioned above. However, some will confuse that and think it means you get 50% of PUBLISHING, meaning the publisher's share.

If I'm all wet asking you if it's a matter of contract language.... well, nevermind.

Best,
Casey