TAXI.com

So this one goes out to all of the members who have experiences with libraries.
I got, through a taxi forward, a submission in a library.
I sent my bounced track as per their technical request. I discovered today that they were 2 extra versions of the same track: a 30 seconds and a 60 seconds versions.
I am aware of these edit since I've written several cues for commercials and did multiple edits of 7, 15, 20, 30, 45 and 60 seconds.
But the thing is. the edits that I've heard on this library sound bad (really bad).

So my questions are:
1. is it a 'normal' thing for libraries to do edits. And if yes, it is normal that they make the track sound 'obviously' cut?
2. Don't they need stems? or each library has its own 'system'
3. Should I suggest to personally do the cuts and submit them?


I mean, if I were to buy a version of the track, and I hear a bad cut, I might change my mind.

Any clues?

Though it sounds convenient, I've never heard of a library doing the edits themselves. They nearly always:
a) require specific edits and/or stems to be submitted with the mains
b) only require the main track and assume editors can make their own cuts as needed
c) accept alternate version as you have them without expectation

Everyone has their own system and many don't require stems, but possibly alternate versions (narrative, drum and bass etc...)

But yes, editing from the master itself probably wouldn't be as clean as having you edit the track.

You could try reaching out with the edits already made and tell them you had these lying around and wondered if they could use them and in the future you're happy to make edits.

Thank you Scott for chiming in,
I guess that's the best way to approach the library again, with clean a good edited versions of the master.
Thanks again,

In my small experience so far, Scott's outline applies to my library too.

I was asked to provide several different mix variations and a few length variations too. I also made it clear that it's easy for me to do the edit and they said they'd just get in touch with me for that.

So it looks like I should probably provide the edits (I'd rather do that, instead of having a weird chopped cue)
Thank you James,

(oh and cool website you have there by the way )

I would maybe reconsider working with a library that's not savvy enough to make a simple edit or ask me to make it. OTOH, if they're already making me serious money, I'd just go ahead and give them the edits.

mojobone wrote:I would maybe reconsider working with a library that's not savvy enough to make a simple edit or ask me to make it. OTOH, if they're already making me serious money, I'd just go ahead and give them the edits.

Totally agree!
Truth to be told, it was and still is the first 'library' to contact me after a forward.
And I had no idea, and still don't, about how to find out about libraries and their level of professionalism, unless they're THE big names.
So yeah I do agree on what you said Mojo, but I ended up sending my own versions of the edits.. Our reputation- at the end of the day- as writers, producers and artists, is at stake.

Let it be.

I signed some tracks to a publisher about a year ago, and did all the edits they asked for (I had a radio career back in the 80s/90s, so was used to doing that kind of work). Later I looked on their site and saw that *they* had done some edits too - they kept some of mine, but added some, and they were really bad - dropped beats, jaggy - just awful. As diplomatically as i could I asked if he really meant them to be that way, and he said yes, that's what their clients wanted. I didn't see any point in arguing.

I've had no placements from them, although a year is not very long I suppose. But for this and other reasons, I won't be signing any more tracks to them.

DesireInspires wrote:Let it be.

+1

jonnybutter wrote:I signed some tracks to a publisher about a year ago, and did all the edits they asked for (I had a radio career back in the 80s/90s, so was used to doing that kind of work). Later I looked on their site and saw that *they* had done some edits too - they kept some of mine, but added some, and they were really bad - dropped beats, jaggy - just awful. As diplomatically as i could I asked if he really meant them to be that way, and he said yes, that's what their clients wanted. I didn't see any point in arguing.

I've had no placements from them, although a year is not very long I suppose. But for this and other reasons, I won't be signing any more tracks to them.

The dreaded "that's what the client wants"
I hear you Jonny