A Voice From the “Dark Side”: Confessions of a Retitler

Film Music Magazine • July 14, 2010

The following article was written by Vaughn Johnson, a composer and President of music library ScoreKeepers Music

Hi, my name is Vaughn Johnson and I’m a retitler.

I am a composer by trade with a great deal of experience selling all rights to my music as a hired hand for television production. When I became involved in the music library business, I set out to provide a different experience for composers by offering them an opportunity to retain ownership of their work. I wondered if, as a publisher, there would be a way to collect royalties only for those broadcast performances that are the result of my company’s placements. I discussed these issues with a representative from BMI when I started this venture. He suggested that we retitle the tracks as that would be the simplest solution to properly allocate publishing royalties per our agreement.

I have read the criticism and misinformation swirling around the internet regarding non-exclusive libraries and the practice of retitling, and feel motivated to raise my voice with others who view the non-exclusive model as a viable alternative.

It is worth noting that my business deals with providing instrumental underscore tracks for TV, not pitching individual songs. Perhaps in the world of advertising, promos, etc. where individual songs compete for placement, the retitling concerns take on a different scope than what I’ll discuss below. Since I do not represent the views of other non-exclusive libraries, some of my responses are personalized to accurately reflect the philosophies and practices of my own company.

Criticism #1. Multiple claims of ownership/legal disputes and ethical issues

Only one party owns the music: the composer. He/she has given us non-exclusive control, the authority to retitle, and the right to collect publishing royalties generated from our placements. Non-exclusive library administrators understand that the cue sheet indicates which title was actually used in the broadcast and therefore which party is entitled to collect publishing royalties. Opponents of retitling are making this practice out to be some sort of back-room deception, using terms such as sketchy, unethical, and insidious. In reality, retitling affords complete accuracy in administering non-exclusive deals by providing the simplest way to satisfy the terms of the agreement.

Criticism #2. Blacklisting by TV clients

I work with producers and editors every day to make sure they have the music and service they need to create successful scores for their programs. They are not concerned where the cleared music came from, or if they can get the same music from another source. They need great music that works for their shows. And lots of it. Deliver that with a smile and they’re happy. I have not encountered any “blacklists”. However, if there are music supervisors or networks that have a problem with non-exclusive libraries, I offer a solution: You don’t need to rule out all non-exclusive libraries, you just need to rule out all but one. One non-exclusive library fits nicely alongside your exclusive libraries and offers a wealth of great music that the exclusives can’t provide.

Criticism #3. Retitling devalues your music

Sustained financial success in the TV music business comes from performance royalties. You don’t get a higher royalty rate because your composition is represented exclusively. From my viewpoint, retitling increases the value of your music by allowing more opportunities for placements and generating royalties. I think most of us will admit that there is a degree of luck involved in this business. As a composer, how do you know which library will be the “lucky” one with your track?

We have composers who are making a substantial annual income due to one particular show for which we provide music. Had these composers put their tracks in an exclusive library (or, for that matter, divided their tracks among non-exclusives) they may have seen income from different sources, but completely missed out on the huge ongoing payout from that particular show. In cases like this, these non-exclusive retitles have proven to be invaluable.

Criticism #4. No possibility of exclusive deals

Composers, do you think that if there is an opportunity for exclusive libraries to make money from your music they will say, “No thanks, that track has been tainted with non-exclusivity”? If the music works and they have clients who are willing to pay for it, I’m sure they’d be happy to take it off of your hands. And per our deal, we will remove any track from our database at the composer’s request, in order to accommodate a better opportunity for them.

Criticism #5. Retitling can attach inferior titles to your songs

Not true with our company. We use actual and completely new titles that complement search parameters in our database to make tracks as useful and marketable as possible. What advantage would we gain by assigning an inferior title?

Criticism #6. Limited potential for international income

We have a system in place that legally affords our composer-owned catalogue international placements and receipt of all applicable royalties including mechanical royalties.

Criticism #7. Performances not tracked by fingerprinting/sound recognition technology

Recently, a music library that uses TuneSat recognition technology claimed that a track credited to me on cue sheet was actually theirs. After reviewing the track itself, it was clear to all parties that the cue sheet was correct and the track was mine. Here’s what caused the trouble:

Both my track and the track from the other library used the same drum loop, with different overdubs. I had added timpani, while the other composer had added guitar. I contacted TuneSat to inquire as to how my track could have been mistaken for the one it fingerprinted. TuneSat’s response was that the track they had in its database was the closest match to the track that was broadcast (mine). Closest? Doesn’t sound like a fingerprint match to me. TuneSat acknowledged that improvements to their technology are necessary to account for different compositions that use the same commercially available loops and sounds, as well as compositions that have been retitled. It is evident that until this technology is perfected, we can anticipate inaccurate results. Perhaps the ultimate solution in sound recognition technology will be one that can account for both the use of drum loops and retitling.

Criticism #8. Non-exclusive libraries are less motivated to promote your tracks

Another generalization that is untrue in our case. Our company is thriving because we work diligently to promote our composers’ tracks. We like making money and our composers do too.

Some claim that non-exclusive libraries are only interested in amassing cues—regardless of quality—in order to boast a large track count. In our case, we only accept high quality cues that are sonically and compositionally useful in television underscore. We champion quantity when it’s quality.

Criticism #9. Actual quote: “Exclusive libraries have a long track record of generating steady income for composers; non-exclusive libraries, on the other hand, are doing everything possible to drive sync fees out of existence and to further accelerate the devaluation of music in the marketplace.”

I will assume that the author’s generalization is an effort to stir up discussion and that he doesn’t actually believe these points to be absolutes. I will address each issue separately:

A. “Exclusive libraries have a long track record of generating steady income for composers.”

I’m sure for some this is true, but isn’t it possible that there are composers who sold their copyright to an exclusive library and have never seen another dime for that composition? Is it possible that they have sold several pieces and after years of exclusive representation have only seen an occasional trickling of performance royalties? These same disappointing results are possible with non-exclusives as well. The difference is that with non-exclusive deals, composers keep their copyrights, control their material, and can pursue many outlets for representation and potential income.

I recently received a call from a very good composer. He has music in our non-exclusive library and has also provided music for several major exclusive libraries over the years. He stated that ours is the only library from which he has seen substantial performance royalty income. For him, generating “steady income” turned out to be the product of a non-exclusive deal. It’s not the music library business model that determines whether or not a composer will make money. Both exclusive and non-exclusive libraries can generate steady income for composers.

B. “Non-exclusive libraries, on the other hand, are doing everything possible to drive sync fees out of existence and to further accelerate the devaluation of music in the marketplace.”

The assumption that it is the motive of non-exclusive libraries to lower fees in an effort to devalue music is absurd. There is more than one factor contributing to decreasing upfront fees in the television music business. As far as music libraries go, low-ball bids are not the sole domain of the non-exclusives. We have had our pricing undercut before by big, reputable, exclusive libraries. Obviously no one in this business is above doing what it takes to compete.

When considering the value of music composed for TV, every experienced composer in this marketplace knows that the sync, or upfront fees are inconsequential when compared to performance royalty income. Any business focused on getting music on the air to generate broadcast royalties truly values the income potential of that music. Our company not only places high value on the income potential of composers’ music, but on their right to keep ownership of it.

In conclusion, we all want to write some cool tunes and make some money while we’re at it. In the music-licensing world, the past few years have proven that you don’t have to be affiliated with a traditional production music library to make a buck. Is it a market-share-scare that would cause some of these exclusives to ban together to cast aspersion on a different business model? Do they feel that by demonizing the practice of retitling they will undermine their non-exclusive competitors? Surely there is room for more than one way to represent a composer’s catalogue. The important issue is the composer’s ability to maintain rights to his/her hard work. I question the motives of any party that would castigate an honest effort used to advance that cause.

I believe it is the composers, not the naysayers, who will determine the future of retitling. An alternative method may emerge, one that may require more complicated administration, but still offers non-exclusive representation. It’s been my experience that music for picture has many lives and many uses. A well-structured non-exclusive deal affords the owners of those useful compositions many opportunities for income, and at the same time leaves open the possibility of selling their works exclusively should the right deal come along.

Comments

By Les Hurdle on July 14th, 2010 at 6:48 pm

V interesting.

I see ‘re-titling’ in the pop world all of the time.
As one of the EU A team of session men in the 60/70/80′s I know see variations of the hit track I recorded now seen as;

EG; The title ABC…..
ABC [released in 1975]
ABC [released in 2001' different label, different 'new' registration.]
ABC re-equed [new registration. new title]
ABC remix [new registration. new title]
ABC 2006 summer mix [new registration. new title]

and on it goes.

I wonder, does our Mr Johnson pay his composers all of their broadcast mechanicals?

Les

BTW…….. I don’t read this column

By Art Munson on July 14th, 2010 at 7:33 pm

Thanks Vaughn, great article!

By Chris on July 15th, 2010 at 12:46 pm

I think re-titling is not only viable but superior to an exclusive music library. I was once afforded the opportunity to sell my catalog to an exclusive library. I was literally days away from signing the papers when it occurred to me that music ownership is the only only way to really make money and more importantly control the destiny of the music I created. Re-titling affords a composer this luxury to own and control that which he/she creates. For those of you who don’t want to own and control your creative output, that’s your prerogative you are welcome to find an exclusive deal with a company who will then own and control your stuff, but leave the rest of us (the smarter ones in my opinion) free to do what we want to do. Certainly, as Vaughn says, there is room for more than one music library business model. It’s a sad state of affairs when owning and controlling your own creative product can even jokingly be referred to as the “Dark Side”. Clearly this is the “Bright Side” of the library business. Vaughn I have many tracks in your library and made thousands of dollars from my music being used in various projects. I can’t speak for other re-titling libraries but Scorekeepers is a good one. Thanks for not being afraid to speak up!

By Chris Woods on July 16th, 2010 at 7:42 am

Hi Vaughn,

I just wanted to clarify your point on TuneSat’s technology. It’s not that TuneSat is identifying your music as “the closest match”. What happened is that the recording we fingerprinted had a section where the drum loop played “in the clear” – without additional instrumental layers. That section of fingerprint is now looking for the use of the drum loop in the broadcast channels we monitor. Since the TuneSat technology is highly robust and was designed to identify music that is buried under other audio layers it considered the timpani as just another layer of audio on top of the drum loop. The technology performed as it should. That said this is precisely why we provide audio recordings of the detections to our clients so that they can listen to the performances for verification. More to the point – there are anomalies in all technologies. Tunesat detects millions and millions of otherwise under or non reported music performances on TV for our clients globally.

If anyone has questions regarding this or any other issue feel free to call me. TuneSat welcomes constructive feedback.

Best,
Chris Woods
EVP, TuneSat LLC
646-361-2658
http://www.tunesat.com
chris@tunesat.com

By Ron Mendelsohn on July 16th, 2010 at 4:13 pm

I was glad to read your article to finally hear the perspective of someone from the “dark side”. I appreciate the fact that this article was written by a fellow composer who is probably as well intentioned and passionate about composers’ rights as I am. In the spirit of continuing this dialogue, I will try to be brief in rebutting various points in this article as I fear that in several instances my arguments were misinterpreted or misconstrued.

#1: COPYRIGHT OWNERSHIP: the issue, as far as market confusion is concerned, is not ownership. The issue is multiple licensors pitching the same song in the marketplace, thereby creating potential confusion.
#2: BLACKLISTS: It is a fact that a growing number of major studios, networks and music supervisors will not work with retitled libraries. The notion that these clients will just work with one retitled library is a bit disingenuous considering that virtually every major music user uses multiple libraries and they are not going to limit their music choices in order to accommodate the shortcomings of non-exclusive licensing.
#3: DEVALUATION: the devaluation argument was made in connection to SYNC fees, not performance fees. It is a fact that a number of retitling libraries are giving away their music for below market or zero sync fees.
#4: EXCLUSIVE DEALS: as the owner of a leading exclusive library and a board member of the PMA, I can tell you as a matter of fact that I will not add any music to our catalog that is available in the marketplace under different titles. If the tracks in question can be “pulled” from all other vendors and we have verified that all such non-exclusive deals have been terminated, then we might consider including such material. I can say with confidence that other reputable exclusive libraries operate in a similar manner.
#5: INFERIOR TITLES: this point in my article was directed more towards companies that distribute songs with lyrics or differentiate cues by adding a suffix or a code in parentheses.
#6: INTERNATIONAL ROYALTIES: I would be interested in learning more about this “system” to collect monies on non-exclusive music internationally and also interested in knowing what percentage of revenue composers are seeing from this “system”. In our experience, all international deals are exclusive by territory. Just putting cues up on a website and making them available for non-exclusive download all over the world – if this is the “system” being suggested- does not strike me as a serious alternative to having exclusive subpublishers in each territory who can promote and pitch the tracks for their unique market and in their local language. As per my article, non-exclusive content does not qualify for registration with foreign mechanical copyright societies so the bulk of international revenues is not accessible to them.
#7: FINGERPRINTING: these technologies have come a very long way in a short time but they are not yet perfect. However, cue sheets are also far from perfect. Given the pace of technological development and considering their investment in these technologies, the PROs are clearly serious about adopting fingerprinting in a big way. And yes, the leading fingerprinting companies do have algorithms which can account for drum loops and these are getting better every day. If history is any judge, the naysayers who bet against technology and human ingenuity are usually on the wrong side of the bet.
#8: MOTIVATION: I acknowledge that perhaps your company is the exception to the rule, but I still maintain that exclusive libraries have more of a vested interest in pitching and promoting tracks by virtual of the fact that they are exclusive distributors.
#9A: INCOME: Here it is important to note that most exclusive libraries commission new material whereas most retitled libraries distribute preexisting material, so we are not exactly comparing apples to apples here. It is customary for commissioned material to be work for hire. Regarding preexisting material, I agree that composers should not give up their copyrights to any company without being duly compensated and doing their due diligence.
#9B: SYNC FEES: I glad to hear that you are helping to maintain sync values in the marketplace. But you then undermine your own argument by saying “Every experienced composer in this marketplace knows that the sync or upfront fees are inconsequential when compared to the performance royalty income”. This is the exact same logic that is causing other retitling companies to drive sync fees into the ground.

The views expressed herein reflect my own personal opinion and do not necessarily represent the position of the PMA.

By Vaughn on July 17th, 2010 at 1:32 pm

Hi Chris W,

Thanks for your comments. In the phone conversation we had at the time of the incident I described, you indicated that you were working to address the common drum loop issue. I am wondering if you have made some progress? In addition to loops it occurs to me that there are probably other examples of similar cues, such as a low drone made with the same synth patch or sample. I look forward to learning how TuneSat is addressing these issues.

By Vaughn on July 17th, 2010 at 1:40 pm

Hi Ron,

I appreciate the respectful tone of your response. We share some common ground. We have some differences. I believe both library models provide valid opportunities for composers to make money. You feel otherwise. It seems to me that the majority of your concerns are directly related to retitling (points 1, 2, 5, 6, 7). I am actually not passionate about retitling. It’s simply the best accounting method I am aware of to administer non-excusive deals. Perhaps my article would have been better titled: A Non-exclusive Point of View, but I couldn’t resist the sarcasm. Hey, maybe I should… retitle it!

I would like to discuss retitling specifically and perhaps some alternatives in another entry. In an effort to consolidate and simplify the non-exclusive debate, let’s look at the points that are not retitling dependant:

#3/9B. SYNC FEES: I don’t feel that this is a part of the non-exclusive vs. exclusive debate because it is not limited to either business model. I know from first hand experience that there are members of the PMA who are “driving sync fees into the ground”, or in other words doing what it takes to get music on the air and collect broadcast performance royalties. Generating broadcast royalties is also my company’s priority and I would be happy to have a separate discussion on the issue of sync fees vs. performance royalties with respect to the value of music for TV.

#4. EXCLUSIVE DEALS: I am glad to see you have clarified your position on this issue. This is what you wrote in your article: “Once a writer signs a non-exclusive deal, that basically preempts any future possibility of signing an exclusive deal with another library or label. No reputable exclusive library is going to acquire or distribute a track that already exists in other permutations in the marketplace…” This is what you stated in this thread: “If the tracks in question can be “pulled” from all other vendors and we have verified that all such non-exclusive deals have been terminated, then we might consider including such material.” As a matter of interest, you have music in your library that once had a home in our non-exclusive library. We pulled the tracks at the composer’s request when he sold them to your company, and you apparently found that to be satisfactory. To imply or state that if a composer signs a non-exclusive deal he has virtually no chance of signing an exclusive deal is simply untrue and comes across looking like a scare tactic.

#8. MOTIVATION: You are right, exclusive libraries that have actually paid money for the copyrights they have acquired do have a vested interest in recouping their investment. Beyond that we both want to make money. I can’t speak for other non-exclusives, but paying the bills and feeding my family is enough motivation for me to work as hard as I can to promote our database of music. While some companies may be more anxiously engaged in pitching tracks than others, I don’t see this as an exclusive vs. non-exclusive issue.

#9A. INCOME: I agree with your comments. The point I was making is that composers can make steady income from their music in either exclusive, or non-exclusive libraries.

Would you agree Ron that in consideration of the points above, the real source of contention in this debate comes down to the practice of retitling?

By A on July 19th, 2010 at 12:04 pm

From Criticism #7: “Both my track and the track from the other library used the same drum loop…”

Yet another reason not to drag-and-drop.

By Robert Safir on July 21st, 2010 at 12:07 pm

I have been following this debate for a while and I’m very glad to see that it has taken a step forward by having BOTH sides of the issue represented. Nevertheless, I’m still uncertain as to what Ron’s real motivation is in trying to stir the pot with what he’s calling a “retitling” issue. I have music in both exclusive and non-exclusive libraries. I have never encountered – nor have I met anyone who has encountered – any type of confusion related to a track that was non-exclusively represented by more than one library.

I have seen many royalties from the tracks I have in Vaughn Johnson’s library, and I have seen them used over and over in many different broadcast and cable shows. I have many tracks with exclusive libraries that have been used in ABC promos and underscore for major broadcast shows and cable shows. By far, the tracks I have with Vaughn’s library have been far more lucrative. You can try and make an argument for what kind of library is more “motivated,” but it just doesn’t hold water.

I would also pose this question to Ron: What do you propose to do with all of the thousands- likely tens of thousands – of non-exclusive library tracks that are currently paying royalties to composers – if you were to reach your objective of making these tracks illegitimate? I thought you were on the side of composers. Are you in favor of eliminating one of their few remaining sources of revenue? How would you resolve this issue, should it come to pass?

It’s tough to maintain marketshare when music is being devaluated as it is today. But let’s make certain we understand the actual causes of the problem, rather than put the blame on those who are trying to make an honest living.

By McKenna Rowe on July 28th, 2010 at 9:02 pm

Vaughn gave me my start in music licensing. He was the first to advise me on improving the songs, tirelessly explained the biz process, royalties, etc. I continue to see royalties every quarter since we began working together years ago. Now I’m signed with a dozen partners in a mix of exclusive/non-exculsive with great results thus far.

-McKenna

By Skip Adams on August 5th, 2010 at 5:19 pm

@Robert Safir: You mentioned that you have tracks with both exclusive and non-exclusive libraries. I trust you didn’t mean the same tracks with both? Because in that case you would be in breach of your agreement with your exclusive publisher.

On the broader point, and to all on this thread, I offer some first hand information:

It is a stone cold fact that many major licensees are now insisting that the libraries they deal with must not operate on the retitling model. I don’t pretend to know the inner mind of the networks, but you can bet your tuckus this trend has emerged for reasons they feel are justified. Infringement lawsuits are probably one of those reasons.

Here’s one scenario in which such lawsuits can (and do) arise:

A composer signs a composition with a non-exclusive publisher. Some time later he signs the same composition with an exclusive publisher. The non-exclusive publisher continues to license the song. The exclusive publisher discovers the infringement(s), and so the chaos begins.

Not only is the exclusive publisher required to sue the non-exclusive publisher, but he will likely also include, as “vicarious infringers,” any party that has licensed the material through the non-exclusive publisher.

The result is that the exclusive publisher gets a respectable settlement from the infringer, and a nice deal with the network, while the non-exclusive company finds itself deep in the network dog house, and the composer is consigned to the outer universe.

The above is not the only chaotic scenario the retitling model seems to have fostered. But, suffice it to say that it’s created some rather large waves in a previously calm sea, and nobody likes waves. Least of all big corporations with lots of money to lose.

By Mark Northam on August 5th, 2010 at 7:08 pm

@Skip – can you provide the names of some of the “many major licensees” that are refusing to do business with retitling libraries? This would be very interesting. Also, any references to any specific lawsuits you mention arise from this practice? Again, details would make this very interesting.

RE: Signing first with a nonexclusive, then later with an exclusive, certainly it would be only proper that the composer properly withdraws his work from the nonexclusive publisher before selling the copyright (or giving it away, as some libraries expect) to the exclusive publisher. If the composer doesn’t take care of business properly in this regard, I’m not sure it’s fair to count that against the nonexclusive libraries – that’s the composer’s screw-up.

The suit situation you mentioned could happen with any library that attempts to license music it does not either own or have a right to license. Once a composer withdraws a work from ANY library, that library has no business licensing it, regardless of the exclusive/nonexclusive business model chosen.

I’m aware of the PMA’s massive publicity push to scare people away from their new competitors, the nonexclusive libraries. It’s why I think it’s important that when the spectre of people or companies blacklisting nonexclusive libraries, or raising the instance of lawsuits, that we talk about specific cases, people and organizations so that we all can judge the situation based on specific facts, cases and laws rather than the “nonexclusive libraries are evil” mantra that the PMA is apparently spending a lot of effort trying to convince the industry is true regarding their competitors. It’s not that I doubt what you are saying – after all, you’re in the library business and I’m not – but given the scare campaign we see being waged today by others, I think it’s important to focus on specific facts, cases, people/organizations and laws when casting judgment on an entire segment of the library industry.

By Skip Adams on August 11th, 2010 at 10:47 am

Mark,

We’ve known each other for a while, although indirectly through emails and such, and I’ve always respected and appreciated your organization and your advocacy for music creators. So it comes as a surprise that you should impugn my integrity by suggesting, albeit obliquely, that I might be shilling for the PMA (I’m not even a member), or “exaggerating” in order to scare composers. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I was merely pointing out a very real dimension to this issue that wasn’t addressed by anyone else. But if some composer is frightened by the legal aspects to the point that they guard against such eventualities in the future, well then maybe that’s a good thing.

As a purveyor of music to the networks, it would be indiscreet of me, if not downright stupid, to name names. It appears I was stupid for mentioning it all.

As for the lawsuit, I just can’t talk about that in any detail without violating the terms of the settlement. But I guess you weren’t aware that such restrictions are common, or else you wouldn’t have put me on the spot with your request for specifics.

Next time I’ll mind my own business.

By Mark Northam on August 11th, 2010 at 3:12 pm

Hi Skip -

My apologies for the multiple misunderstandings here!

* I didn’t realize that the lawsuit you were referring to was one YOU were a party to! Of course I understand that settlement details are confidential, as they usually are in these sorts of things.

* I did not mean to imply you were shilling for the PMA, although upon re-reading my comment I can see how you might have come to that conclusion about my intent. I know you are an independent and did not mean to imply in any way you were engaging in the “scare tactics”. For me to mix in my concern about those types of tactics in my response to you only muddied the waters, when I was actually trying to clarify them by requesting more details.

Please accept my apologies for my poorly worded comment and the resulting misunderstanding. I never meant in any way to impugn your integrity – the fact that you take the time to post here with your experiences and information is a benefit to FMM and its readers, and I hope you won’t let one poorly worded email from me written late at night prevent you from future contributions.

By Skip Adams on August 11th, 2010 at 3:21 pm

Thanks Mark. You’re a mensch.

By Yadgyu on September 17th, 2010 at 4:10 pm

The lack of understanding regarding retitle libraries is frightening and perplexing!

The argument against non-exclusive retitle libraries is only made by exclusive libraries. These companies are losing money to retitle libraries and are scared that the exclusive libraries will soon be coming to an end. The exclusive libraries are correct; their days are numbered and rightfully so.

Every legal and ethical argument made against non-exclusive libraries are actively practiced by exclusive libraries. Exclusive libraries get control for a song into perpetuity. This means that the library has the right to use the song however it wants. Many exclusive libraries enter into deals with foreign publishers where the library collects fees that they do not have to pay to the writer of the song.

Non-exclusive libraries only retitle for the sole purpose of splitting up the revenue streams from music. Sending the same song to different libraries makes perfect sense because your songs compete against one another instead of competing against songs from other composers. It is a win-win situation.

By Yadgyu on May 29th, 2012 at 5:42 pm

Signing an exclusive deal for no upfront money and little to no sync fees is foolish. Composers might as well keep ownership of their catalogs and be free to pitch them to as many libraries as possible on a non-exclusive basis.

Non-exclusive retitle libraries get about 80% of placements on cable and network tv. The question is cannot you afford NOT to have music in a no -exclusive retitle library? Think long term for a change. Keep your rights and get your performance royalties from a number of libraries. Diversification is the key here.

By Http://enbase.net on March 6th, 2013 at 1:07 am

My partner and I absolutely love your blog and find nearly all of your
post’s to be just what I’m looking for. Do you
offer guest writers to write content for yourself? I wouldn’t mind publishing a post or elaborating on some of the subjects you write related to here. Again, awesome blog!

By Frank on December 30th, 2013 at 4:54 pm

Interesting, as this was written in 2010. Now, reaching the beginning of 2014, Scorekeepers pushes exclusive tracks in their library – they still accept non-exclusive – but have announced that they are moving away from retitling.

Trackbacks

Leave a Comment