I have received a couple of emails wanting me to add my music to their library. I am already in multiple libraries and don't want the hassle of another, but it does look like a professional web site with some good sample placements.

Feedback?

Thanks,

Colin

Hey Colin:

If anyone here at JPF would know, it's John Lawrence Schick. Maybe he will "weigh in" soon... if not, PM him. I used to receive the Music Library Report but it is now a membership fee deal and I'm too darn cheap!

Best of luck,

Dave

I have about 50 songs with Mibe, started with them in May of this year. No placements yet, but their communication is very good and their upload process is pretty simple. They were working on some projects about a month ago looking for a lot of blues/rock cues, Black Keys, White Stripes type stuff. 50/50 non-exclusive, re-title

John,

I was with you until you said "re-title" which I feel is akin to "please take what little money I might ever make off of this and ensure I never get ANY credit if it is used in a high profile production. Unless you see/hear it yourself or someone who knows your music well hears it, you have no way of knowing if it was ever used. If you put 50 songs up there with no placements, I sure would hold off putting more unless there's a short reversion clause.

But I do thank you for sharing your experience. They could be totally above board, I have no idea, but that practice sure allows the less above board folks to abuse people.

I have never heard of them but agree with Brian about re-titling. How in the world would one know if their song was used but the title changed from your original to something totally unrelated and you were not informed?

I recently had 2 songs considered for a documentary project that might have paid decently. But I backed out of it because of the re-titling issue. The entity could not promise me that I would be advised immediately if either or both of my songs were to be re-titled. When I asked about what avenue I would have to assure I would receive just royalties for the use of my titles, the reply was something to the gist of "We've been in business a long time and never failed to pay due royalties. It's a matter of professional understanding and trust." When I asked if they would take my word that I play guitar better than Chet Atkins, Brent Mason and Joe Pass combined and offer me a placement on just my word, of course the answer was "You must be kidding!", or something similar. I told them that was my side of the "professional understanding and trust" issue. I never heard back from them after that!

Good luck with your music, wherever you promote it ...

Alan

I’ve never heard of MIBE, but new music libraries are sprouting-up like weeds. If it’s fairly new, it may take a couple years to build up a client base before you’d see placements.

MIBE appears to be the typical non-exclusive library. MIBE is listed with Music Library Report: http://musiclibraryreport.com/ I’m not a member any longer so I don’t know what was said about them there. Now MLR has reviews of 500 music libraries.

Though I only concern myself with exclusive libraries these days, I still have tracks in several non-exclusive libraries from the past. Here’s how retitling works…

Say you have the same track in three different non-exclusive libraries. Library A, B, and C. You submit your track titled “Gruesome Encounter”. The retitling in all cases I’ve experienced, the library adds a prefix or suffix to your original title. Thus… new titles become Gruesome Encounter A, Gruesome Encounter B, and Gruesome Encounter C. All three libraries will register this track with their prefix/suffix to your PRO. Your PRO will consider these separate tracks. Actually my exclusive libraries also use the prefix/suffix labeling method.

When “Gruesome Encounter A” gets placed, a cue sheet is sent to your PRO and credit will be given to the title with the “A” suffix. Since you’re the writer registered with all three title variations, there is little chance you won’t be given credit. A bigger issue is the many clients that don’t turn in cue sheets at all. Without the cue sheet, you’ll never know where that track is being used regardless if it’s a non-exclusive or exclusive library. But that’s another issue entirely. Though if there is upfront money, you’ll find out directly from the publisher where it was placed.

As far as being ripped-off, it’s just as easy to be ripped-off by an exclusive library as it is with non-exclusive one. Any dishonest library can change your title and credit themselves as the writer. You would never know (save digital fingerprinting).

So the bottom-line is… do you trust the library you’re using? I’ve formed close relationships with a couple libraries that I totally trust. They’ve proven themselves over and over. It’s a chancy business, thus, that’s the reality. Then again, I’ve also found libraries I wouldn’t recommend to my worst enemy.

Best, John

John,

As you describe it, that would work fine. But I hear horror stories where not only are names changed to disconnected titles (instead of "Gruesome Encounter A" imagine they renamed it "Montezuma's Revenge" and instead of the writer being listed as John Lawrence Schick, it was changed to "ABC Corporation" or worse "Bill Smith" who happens to be the owner. This happens A LOT! I have seen films using our members music which were nominees in our music awards (I bet I have heard 20% of our nominees in a film or TV Show at one time or another because companies cherry pick our list every time as we've done their work for them, labels do the same thing but I digress) and in some cases when I watch for their names in the credits, I will see the wrong name and the writer listed as the company or owner of the company or someone else who is not connected to the song. Sadly, this often happens because people don't bother to learn how these things CAN (not ALWAYS DO, simply CAN) work if you do not protect yourself. In addition that fine print written in impenetrable legalese often gives these companies rights to do whatever they want without recourse "throughout the universe and for all time." (A common statement in contracts I DESPISE).

Be careful out there. I think John and I agree that you should really work with exlusive libraries only. Doesn't mean they will be more honest, but many Music Supervisors won't work with non exclusives anymore because of the confusion as to where something was first found.

Brian

Thanks for the comments. My experience with retitling is the same as John's.....a suffix added to the original title.

Placing songs in TV and movies has become like the rest of the music business....the supply exceeds the demand by a thousand percent so the odds of anything worthwhile are slim without personal contact and someone pushing your wares.

Yes, I believe exclusive is the best way to go today (didn't always think that way). From my experience with exclusive agreements there are benefits. 1. The composer is taken more seriously, 2. Easier to grow a relationship, rather than just being a negligible number, 3. More chance of seeing major network placements (all my major network gigs came from exclusive), 4. Often getting heads-up on what they’re clients are looking for, and 5. Less chance of annoying clients, e.g., a client finding out they could’ve got the exact same track from another publisher at a fraction of the cost.

That being said, there are good and bad libraries on both sides. Don’t give the bulk of booty to any one library until you’re comfortable with them. And always insist on a reversion clause (one year preferred).

John

Re-titling is one of the many negative realities for composers in the library business. Direct licensing, exclusive in perpetuity with no upfront money, Youtube content ID, google trying to jam us in a box as content providers, companies that want half or all of your writers share, less than 50/50 splits on sync licenses....well you know what's going on. It's ugly out there

Re-titling is something that you can at least have some control of. Don't do it too many times (I'll admit I have made that mistake already). Know what all those titles are and register them with your pro. Don't give perpetuity and pull them if there are no placements after a period of time.

I'm not going to worry about no sales in 6 months with Mibe. It's a one year reversion. I've had them sit for two years at other libraries with no placements and then bang, they start to roll in. Or at least trickle in. If nothing happens in two years you have to start thinking about pulling them down.

John (other John in this thread) pointed out he is focusing on exclusives. I have two exs I work with. One has done well, one has not. They're such a leap of faith even if you have reversion. It sounds like he has a lot more time in the business, has developed some relationship with his exs, and is comfortable with them. I don't have that comfort factor yet, but hopefully I will over time.

And anyway, that next song is going to be the big one...

Wait?!?

Did I really just read John writing - best to go exclusive?!?

Hell must have froze over. Oddly enough another writer I knew who swore by retitles is also now shifting to exclusive libraries. Said writer also just switched to SESAC because ASCAP isn't paying enough and classing his placements at lower rates than his SESAC counterpart.

The trend I'm seeing now is libraries no longer providing upfront monies, but in exchange they are giving the composer some of the publishing in lieu of that. Kinda shifting back into composer favor. So long as they can record at an awesome enough quality.

Never heard of MIBE, but based on retitles I agree. Don't do it.