Publishing Contract
Fairyn Rain
I'm confused. I'm getting exceptional feedback with only my first four
completed songs towards my debut album. Prominent people in the
business tell me that the material is first rate and highly marketable
as a product, and I have a publishing offer now, (Contract in the mail)
that stipulates, as far as I know, that this company gets 50% of all
publishing royalties (BMI) that they place, mostly feature films/TV. I
know this company does place a lot of music, but I feel confident of
being picked up anyway by a prominent label. We all feel that this
project is going to be a huge success, no matter how or by whom it gets
connected.
My first thought is, wouldn't it be more fair and good business, too,
for me to be able to pitch this music as well, and whoever is the most
succesful reap the rewards for the efforts, for example, give them a
shot with 50% their reward, but also give me a shot and offer these
publishers a smaller allotment, such as 20% if I get the job done better
on my own. Is this outrageous? (My business partner laughed me out of
the studio when I suggested it as a possibility). Are such things
impossible, preposterous as all that? No-holds-barred, be brutal.
(They will be, he says). So lets have your feedback, ideas, ridicule,
whatever you know to be true in this business. Thank you very much.
--
Aloha,
Fairyn Rain
rcoc...@maui.net
joslin
First of all, congrats!
I only know what I've read from web and book research, so take this for
what it's worth, and by all means, talk to as many people "in the know"
as possible.
You can stipulate whatever you want in the publishing contract, as long
as the publisher aand you both agree to it. The stated 50% is standard
industry practice. Unless you are an "established" artist with the clout
to get what you ask for (i.e. "rich and famous"), you can probably
expect the "50-50" deal.
You also need to consider all the other "side" jobs that a good
publisher will do for you...negotiating and issuing synchronization
licenses, mechanical licenses, coordinating printing of your songs,
administering foriegn rights, monitoring bars, restaurants, and airwaves
for the purpose of collecting royalties for you (and them), and a few
other jobs that you probably wouldn't have the time or resources to do
yourself, but will benefit from.
Theres a lot to consider. Ask questions about anything that you're not
totally sure of, and you should have a lawyer or some other "expert"
review the contract before signing on the dotted line.
Good Luck,
Randy Joslin
Roger Wiseman
I would try to get a co-publishing or administrative publishing agreement.
I've read where you have more control over your songs and you get to keep the
publisher's half (after administrative costs, of course) and come out ahead.
I personally would perfer an adminstrative deal because it takes a lot of
time to publish, etc. and you need plenty of money, contacts, etc..from what
I've been reading up on. (Trying to get a handle on it)
good luck,
--
cr...@ovnet.com (Crow(Roger Wiseman)) #(:)o]
Guitarist
__________________________________________
"Love is the answer..." John Lennon
afcp...@aol.com
Fairyn Rain writes:
> I'm getting exceptional feedback with only my first four completed
> songs towards my debut album. Prominent people in the business
> tell me that the material is first rate and highly marketable as a
> product, and I have a publishing offer now (Contract in the mail)
> that stipulates, as far as I know, that this company gets 50% of all
> publishing royalties (BMI) that they place, mostly feature films/TV.
> I know this company does place a lot of music, but I feel confident of
> being picked up anyway by a prominent label...
>
> wouldn't it be more fair and good business, too, for me to be able to
> pitch this music as well, and whoever is the most succesful reap the
> rewards for the efforts, for example, give them a shot with 50% their
> reward, but also give me a shot and offer these publishers a smaller
> allotment, such as 20% if I get the job done better on my own.
You really need to sit down with a music attorney to examine this contract
and determine *exactly* what it says. You said they get 50% *of the
publishing royalties*, which means it's a co-publishing deal from the
start. Make sure that's what it is, as opposed to 50% of *all* your
royalties. Then you mention BMI, a performance rights organization that
may be involved in collecting your royalties for you, but is otherwise not
an integral part of your deal. You go on to say that the publisher gets
their percentage for songs "that they place," which would put the deal on
a song-by-song basis, more like the "fair alternative" you propose than
the probable reality of the contract. (More likely, they want publishing
on X number of songs written in X period of time, and also X songs from
your back catalog.)
Regarding getting picked up by a prominent label, don't let all the
positive feedback swell your head. I'm not saying you're not great; I'm
saying people in this business will say anything, but it only matters when
they put their own money on the line. Until you have a bona fide offer
from a label, you're just another unsigned artist, which means you have to
look after your own interests.
So, how does this affect the publishing offer? An aggressive, connected
publisher can do a *much* better job of placing your material in films,
etc., than you can as an unsigned artist, and quite possibly better than
you could as a signed artist. A publisher can also help an unsigned artist
get signed. The down side is that some labels want a chunk of the
publishing as part of the deal in signing an artist. If a label discovers
that you've already signed publishing away, they may be less interested.
You have a lot to consider here before signing any deals. I'll say this:
If you really can act as your own publisher, pursuing placement of your
songs with artists, film studios, et al., more power to you. I'm all for
writers taking charge and keeping all their money. However, that's a
time-consuming job, and most people in the business would rather deal with
an established professional publisher than a self-promoting writer/artist.
You want to leave yourself time to write, rehearse, record, tour, promote
and still have a life to inspire material for your next album. If you want
your songs placed in film and TV, there are a lot of advantages to having
a publisher earn their 50%.
Peter Stoller
Larry Collins
Fairyn Rain <rcoc...@maui.net> wrote:
>I'm confused. I'm getting exceptional feedback with only my first four
>completed songs towards my debut album. Prominent people in the
>business tell me that the material is first rate and highly marketable
>as a product, and I have a publishing offer now, (Contract in the mail)
>that stipulates, as far as I know, that this company gets 50% of all
>publishing royalties (BMI) that they place, mostly feature films/TV. I
If you are already in production on your songs, then you don't
necessarily NEED a publisher. I'd think about it more before signing
away the publisher's portion. The main (but not only) thing a
publisher does is to find someone to cut your song.
It you want someone besides yourself to cut the songs after you do, a
publisher could help you along with that, especially with mastered
recordings to use as demos.
On the other hand, it you intend to be the artist, then his job is
already done for him, so why give away that percentage?
>know this company does place a lot of music, but I feel confident of
>being picked up anyway by a prominent label. We all feel that this
>project is going to be a huge success, no matter how or by whom it gets
>connected.
It sounds like you're self-producing this, without going through a
label. It's easier to be your own publisher than it is to be your own
label, since the label handles promotion and distribution of the CD's,
and lines up tours, etc.
It sounds like you need to be looking for a label, rather than a
publisher. While a publisher can probably help connect you with a
label, it shouldn't be hard to find one on your own, if you already
have a well-produced album in the can.
By already having produced the album, you've done a good part of the
label's job for them, too, if it's good.
> My first thought is, wouldn't it be more fair and good business, too,
>for me to be able to pitch this music as well, and whoever is the most
>succesful reap the rewards for the efforts, for example, give them a
Did someone tell you that Life was fair? I'm afraid they misinformed
you, if so. :-)
>the studio when I suggested it as a possibility). Are such things
>impossible, preposterous as all that? No-holds-barred, be brutal.
You should have expressed it as a "hope", or even a "wish", instead of
a "possibility". A publisher will want the percentage established up
front.
Picture this. The publisher puts out a lot of his time into shopping
your song around, maybe even incurs some expenses, such as having a
better demo done, long=distance bills, maybe even plane tickets. Then
lightning strikes, you get lucky, and you find an artist before he
does.
Now all his time and maybe expenses have brought him a 30% reduction
in returns, though he didn't give you a 30% reduction in his time and
effort until that point.
Larry Collins
joslin <jos...@server1.softdisk.com> wrote:
>You also need to consider all the other "side" jobs that a good
>publisher will do for you...negotiating and issuing synchronization
>licenses, mechanical licenses, coordinating printing of your songs,
>administering foriegn rights, monitoring bars, restaurants, and airwaves
You have a rather expanded idea of the "side jobs" a publisher does.
The publisher doesn't monitor bars, restaurants, or airwaves. That's
what the performing rights organizations, such as ASCAP and BMI do.
The publisher collects mechanical royalties when CD's are pressed, and
often, he doesn't even do that, delegating it to an agent, such as
Harry Fox, instead.
Also, most songs don't get sheet music printed until they've already
been in the top 40 on the Billboard charts. (which is to say that MOST
songs don't get it printed at all)
You don't print sheet music on an unknown song, because it would be
easy to wind up with 5,000 copies of the sheet music in a closet.
There must be a market for the sheet music before a publisher will
consider having it printed, because they don't just print a hundred
copies at a time.
You can find plenty of people with 500 copies of a self-produced CD
in their closet, unable to even give them away. I know two,
personally. It's the same principle. They didn't have a market for the
albums before they recorded them.
Barry Kolsky
Publishers do MUCH more than just find an artist to cut your songs. We
also get deals for artists. Personally, I have developed many artists
for labels, and some have gone platinum. Recently, our company launched
a writer to the status of "screenwriter" when we developed his songs
into a full length feature "animated" film, based on 1 song that he
wrote. Now the writer is being approached by several film production
companies to sign an "option" for his yet unwritten future projects.
The fact is, if you have all of the contacts, $$$, knowledge, and time
to run your songwriting as a business, then you DON'T need a publisher.
Otherwise........
--
Barry
\\\^///
< •؟• >
~
http://home.earthlink.net/~kolsky
suchka
>
> Publishers do MUCH more than just find an artist to cut your songs. > We
> also get deals for artists. Personally, I have developed many artists
> for labels, and some have gone platinum. Recently, our company > launched
> a writer to the status of "screenwriter" when we developed his songs
> into a full length feature "animated" film, based on 1 song that he
> wrote. Now the writer is being approached by several film production
> companies to sign an "option" for his yet unwritten future projects.
>
> The fact is, if you have all of the contacts, $$$, knowledge, and time
> to run your songwriting as a business, then you DON'T need a > > publisher.
> Otherwise........
Still, don't you admit that 50% cut for a publisher for an already
developed artist with a recorded album is a bit too high a price?
He might consider creating his own publishing company and having you
administer his catalogue. As far as I know, this co-publishing agreement
usually entitles the songwriter to 75% of the receipts as opposed to the
usual 50.. I was advised that a writer performer should seek an
administrative publishing deal rather than the traditional publishing
contract. Publishing broadly incorporates two sides: administration of
songs (registering copyrights, ASCAP/BMI, foreign licensing, etc.) and
promotion (getting covers, ads, use in TV, etc.).. Since a performing
artist is in no need of much promotion (unless he wants to get 1000+
covers of his songs, like "Yesterday"), he need not have a fully-blown
publishing contract.
Seth Jackson
On Tue, 03 Dec 1996 15:27:02 +0000, Fairyn Rain <rcoc...@maui.net>
wrote:
: My first thought is, wouldn't it be more fair and good business, too,
:for me to be able to pitch this music as well, and whoever is the most
:succesful reap the rewards for the efforts, for example, give them a
:shot with 50% their reward, but also give me a shot and offer these
:publishers a smaller allotment, such as 20% if I get the job done better
:on my own. Is this outrageous?
Let's just say that I would be rather surprised if you could get them
to agree to this.
The way you've described the deal sounds unlike the way most
publishing deals work. Usually, the deal is for the publisher to take
50% of the publishing on *all* your songs over a period of time, not
just the one they place. I'd check to make sure that you're
understanding the offer correctly.
It may or may not be worth it to you to sign a publishing deal at all.
One big reason for a writer/artist to sign is to get the publisher's
help in landing a label deal. This would justify the publisher's
getting publishing on all of your songs.
Whatever you do, you should *absolutely* talk with a music attorney
before signing any deal. You might want to get the attorney into the
loop sooner rather than later, so he can help in negotiating the deal.
--
Seth Jackson
Seth Jackson's Songwriting Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/speaker
Songwriting and the Music Business, plus the Online "Country Notes" for the Los Angeles area
pegbe...@aol.com
<<: My first thought is, wouldn't it be more fair and good business,
too,
:for me to be able to pitch this music as well, and whoever is the most
:succesful reap the rewards for the efforts, for example, give them a
:shot with 50% their reward, but also give me a shot and offer these
:publishers a smaller allotment, such as 20% if I get the job done better
:on my own. Is this outrageous?
Let's just say that I would be rather surprised if you could get them
to agree to this...>>
Actually, anything is possible. I had a producer/publisher (a reputable
one, had worked with artists such as Boston, Linda Rondstat, JD Souther,
and others) offer me an "income participation" agreement on a song. I
would be the publisher, and would retain all rights to the song. He would
"work" the song, and if he got it cut, I would pay him 50% of the
publishing royalties I collected. If I got the song cut, I owed him
nothing. Sounds pretty much like what this poster is proposing.
Is this unusual? Yes, I think so. I was talking to an established
songwriter I know, telling him about the deal, and at first he kept saying
I must be mistaken, that no one would offer an "unknown" writer with no
track record that kind of deal. Most publishers I pitch to want at
*least* 50% of the publishing, if not *all* the publishing, straight out.
And most writers I know don't get co-pub arrangements until after they
have a track record.
But you know what? It never hurts to ask. Just be fair, and make a show
of good faith. If it were me (and now that I know that things such as
"income participation" arrangements exist :-), I would probably do this:
set up my own publishing company, but ask the interested publisher to
administer it for me. That would probably cost me an outright percentage
of the royalties, maybe up to 20%. (But if I were actually generating
royalties, it would be worth it to me to have someone else do the books
:-). In addition, offer to share the publishing income with that
publisher if *they* secured the cut. Hell, even if they end up collecting
the lion's share -- or even *all* -- of the publishing royalties, leaving
you the writer's share...that's still better than 100% of nothing if you
can't get a cut yourself.
Even if you signed away the publishing (and they're still only asking for
50%, which isn't too bad) outright for these first few songs, if you
think they have good access and can get action on your catalog, it's worth
it. You can always renegotiate the terms once you've got a track record
(and therefore presumably better access of your own). You don't want to
be unnecessarily generous, but you also don't want to be so stingy that
you miss out on opportunities by saying "no thanks" to people who might
actually be able to help you.
The thing you DON'T want to do is get into long-term entanglements (e.g.,
rights to your future catalog) before you're sure they can actually help
your career. You say you have four songs -- maybe you start with that, or
even just one or two of those songs -- and see what happens. Get a
reversion clause, so the rights come back to you after a specified period
of time if they are unable to generate any action. See what they can do
with those few songs. If they show you they're effective, go from there.
There are lots of ways to play this game. Only you can decide if what you
give up is worth the potential rewards down the line, or whether you can
reap those rewards on your own, without any outside help.
--peg
Seth Jackson
On 11 Dec 1996 01:54:02 GMT, pegbe...@aol.com wrote:
:Let's just say that I would be rather surprised if you could get them
:to agree to this...>>
:
:Actually, anything is possible. I had a producer/publisher (a reputable
:one, had worked with artists such as Boston, Linda Rondstat, JD Souther,
:and others) offer me an "income participation" agreement on a song. I
:would be the publisher, and would retain all rights to the song. He would
:"work" the song, and if he got it cut, I would pay him 50% of the
:publishing royalties I collected. If I got the song cut, I owed him
:nothing. Sounds pretty much like what this poster is proposing.
:
:Is this unusual? Yes, I think so. I was talking to an established
Actually, I don't think this is all that unusual when it comes to
single-song deals. Sometimes, a publisher will agree to run with a
song on a nun-exclusive basis without written contract. Then, if they
get a cut, they'll do a contract with you. I've made agreements like
this on more than one occasion.
It sounds like the deal is question here is a staff deal. You're
right in that anything is negotiable, but as I said, I'd be real
surprised if an unknown writer/artist would get an arrangement like
this on a staff deal.
:But you know what? It never hurts to ask. Just be fair, and make a show
:of good faith. If it were me (and now that I know that things such as
:"income participation" arrangements exist :-), I would probably do this:
:set up my own publishing company, but ask the interested publisher to
:administer it for me. That would probably cost me an outright percentage
:of the royalties, maybe up to 20%. (But if I were actually generating
:royalties, it would be worth it to me to have someone else do the books
::-). In addition, offer to share the publishing income with that
:publisher if *they* secured the cut. Hell, even if they end up collecting
:the lion's share -- or even *all* -- of the publishing royalties, leaving
:you the writer's share...that's still better than 100% of nothing if you
:can't get a cut yourself.
Another consderation would be if they are offering an advance, and if
so, how much. On a single-song deal, you're not likely to get much of
an advance if any at all, but on a staff deal, the advance could
conceivably be considerable. You could think of it as selling a
percentage of your future royalties for an upfront lump sum. That
might sound like a move that shows lack of confidence, but
realistically, future royalties are uncertain, whereas an upfront lump
sum is risk-free.
:Even if you signed away the publishing (and they're still only asking for
:50%, which isn't too bad) outright for these first few songs, if you
:think they have good access and can get action on your catalog, it's worth
:it. You can always renegotiate the terms once you've got a track record
:(and therefore presumably better access of your own). You don't want to
:be unnecessarily generous, but you also don't want to be so stingy that
:you miss out on opportunities by saying "no thanks" to people who might
:actually be able to help you.
Absolutely true.
:The thing you DON'T want to do is get into long-term entanglements (e.g.,
:rights to your future catalog) before you're sure they can actually help
:your career. You say you have four songs -- maybe you start with that, or
:even just one or two of those songs -- and see what happens. Get a
:reversion clause, so the rights come back to you after a specified period
:of time if they are unable to generate any action. See what they can do
:with those few songs. If they show you they're effective, go from there.
Reversions are rare with staff deals. A four-song deal would resemble
l4 separate single-song deals more than it would a staff deal. In a
situation like the one here, I think publishers are generally thinking
more along the lines of a staff deal, where they get the rights to
future catalog over a certain period of time. One year might be a
reasonable term for a deal like this.
Larry Collins
pegbe...@aol.com wrote:
> Most publishers I pitch to want at *least* 50% of the publishing, if not *all*
>the publishing, straight out. And most writers I know don't get co-pub
>arrangements until after they have a track record.
A guy I know wrote a song, released in 1989 on an indie label. He got
a pretty bad deal on it, where the artist got 100% of the publishing,
and 50% of the writing. They are now co-writers on the song, though
the artist didn't write anything except the contract.
However, the artist got it picked up by Atlantic records, and it went
nationwide, then was a big hit all over Europe. I saw the artist doing
the song on TNN a couple of months ago.
Now the writer, well he told me that he's still making $40,000 to
$50,000 per year in royalties from his half-the-writing arrangement on
that 1989 song.
Sometimes, 25% of A Whole Lot is better than 50% of Not Much, though
deals like that hurt all writers in general.
PegBertsch
<<: See what they can do
:with those few songs. If they show you they're effective, go from there.
Reversions are rare with staff deals. A four-song deal would resemble
l4 separate single-song deals more than it would a staff deal.>.
True, but my point was, don't sign the staff deal (actually, this
situation sounds more like a writer/artist developmental deal, which can
vary a little from the standard staff *writing* deal) right off the bat if
that makes the poster uncomfortable. Better to approach it a little at a
time, kind of a trial period using only a specified portion of a catalog
(a few songs). And as part of that trial period, ask for the reversion on
those specified songs.
Suchka
And since we started to talk about it, to the writers who secured a
publishing contract: how hard/how common is it to get a reversion clause
on your songs?
Also, if you want to find the artist who'd be willing to record your
songs yourself, do you really need a full publisher, or should you just
stick to someone who's gonna administer your songs for a fee? I have no
experience in the music business, but I heard of some large companies
administering catalogues for 15-25 percent of the (publisher's?) income.
What are the disadvantages of having a publisher only administering your
songs and doing all of the promotion yourself?(Apart from the obvious,
that its hard to get in contact with recording artists)
>
> <<: My first thought is, wouldn't it be more fair and good business,
> too,
> :for me to be able to pitch this music as well, and whoever is the most
> :succesful reap the rewards for the efforts, for example, give them a
> :shot with 50% their reward, but also give me a shot and offer these
> :publishers a smaller allotment, such as 20% if I get the job done better
> :on my own. Is this outrageous?
>
> Let's just say that I would be rather surprised if you could get them
> to agree to this...>>
>
> Actually, anything is possible. I had a producer/publisher (a reputable
> one, had worked with artists such as Boston, Linda Rondstat, JD Souther,
> and others) offer me an "income participation" agreement on a song. I
> would be the publisher, and would retain all rights to the song. He would
> "work" the song, and if he got it cut, I would pay him 50% of the
> publishing royalties I collected. If I got the song cut, I owed him
> nothing. Sounds pretty much like what this poster is proposing.
>
> Is this unusual? Yes, I think so. I was talking to an established
> songwriter I know, telling him about the deal, and at first he kept saying
> I must be mistaken, that no one would offer an "unknown" writer with no
> track record that kind of deal. Most publishers I pitch to want at
> *least* 50% of the publishing, if not *all* the publishing, straight out.
> And most writers I know don't get co-pub arrangements until after they
> have a track record.
>
> But you know what? It never hurts to ask. Just be fair, and make a show
> of good faith. If it were me (and now that I know that things such as
> "income participation" arrangements exist :-), I would probably do this:
> set up my own publishing company, but ask the interested publisher to
> administer it for me. That would probably cost me an outright percentage
> of the royalties, maybe up to 20%. (But if I were actually generating
> royalties, it would be worth it to me to have someone else do the books
> :-). In addition, offer to share the publishing income with that
> publisher if *they* secured the cut. Hell, even if they end up collecting
> the lion's share -- or even *all* -- of the publishing royalties, leaving
> you the writer's share...that's still better than 100% of nothing if you
> can't get a cut yourself.
>
> Even if you signed away the publishing (and they're still only asking for
> 50%, which isn't too bad) outright for these first few songs, if you
> think they have good access and can get action on your catalog, it's worth
> it. You can always renegotiate the terms once you've got a track record
> (and therefore presumably better access of your own). You don't want to
> be unnecessarily generous, but you also don't want to be so stingy that
> you miss out on opportunities by saying "no thanks" to people who might
> actually be able to help you.
>
> The thing you DON'T want to do is get into long-term entanglements (e.g.,
> rights to your future catalog) before you're sure they can actually help
> your career. You say you have four songs -- maybe you start with that, or
> even just one or two of those songs -- and see what happens. Get a
> reversion clause, so the rights come back to you after a specified period
> of time if they are unable to generate any action. See what they can do
> with those few songs. If they show you they're effective, go from there.
>
MidiMan
Suchka <suc...@ragnarok.pomona.edu> wrote in article
<32B1A8...@ragnarok.pomona.edu>...
> And since we started to talk about it, to the writers who secured a
> publishing contract: how hard/how common is it to get a reversion clause
> on your songs?
I think VERY uncommon for newcomers. Just my personal experience based on
the three music publishers Ive been unlucky enough to deal with so far (Ill
stop before I get started, after all, we need bad people to have good
people.)
> Also, if you want to find the artist who'd be willing to record your
> songs yourself, do you really need a full publisher, or should you just
> stick to someone who's gonna administer your songs for a fee? I have no
> experience in the music business, but I heard of some large companies
> administering catalogues for 15-25 percent of the (publisher's?) income.
More like 50%. and Your not going to get near any sort of big time artist
unless you know someone or happen to have the right connections..
> What are the disadvantages of having a publisher only administering your
> songs and doing all of the promotion yourself?(Apart from the obvious,
> that its hard to get in contact with recording artists)
>
>
> >
> > <<: My first thought is, wouldn't it be more fair and good
business,
fair and good business?? Oh, I thought this was songwriting....
PegBertsch
<<> And since we started to talk about it, to the writers who secured a
> publishing contract: how hard/how common is it to get a reversion clause
> on your songs?
I think VERY uncommon for newcomers. Just my personal experience based on
the three music publishers Ive been unlucky enough to deal with so far
(Ill
stop before I get started, after all, we need bad people to have good
people.)
>>
Gotta disagree here. Reversion clauses are not at all uncommon for
newcomers. You just have to know to *ask* for one -- granted it's not to
a publishers advantage to give you a reversion clause, so unless you
specifically ask for one, it might not be in the contract, but most
reputable publishers I've dealt with will be willing to give you *some*
kind of reversion (though you should probably let them have the song for 2
years, give or take).
If you failed to get reversion clauses for your songs, I think it had more
to do with not knowing what to ask for than it did anything else. It's a
painful lesson, but next time, you'll know better. And if a publisher
flat out refuses to give you *any* kind of reversion clause (even if
you're generous and give the song to them for 3 years or more), that might
be a good indication that it's someone you might not want to deal with.
BTW, it's issues like these that I think an organization like NSAI or NAS
or NCSA (songwriters organizations) can help educate you about. I'd heard
all about reversion clauses before I ever dealt with my first publisher.
I'm thankful to have had the education!
--peg
Seth Jackson
On 15 Dec 1996 04:26:16 GMT, "MidiMan" <mid...@west.net> wrote:
:
:
:Suchka <suc...@ragnarok.pomona.edu> wrote in article
:<32B1A8...@ragnarok.pomona.edu>...
:> And since we started to talk about it, to the writers who secured a
:> publishing contract: how hard/how common is it to get a reversion clause
:> on your songs?
:
:I think VERY uncommon for newcomers.
I beg to differ on this. It's getting a bit harder these days, but
virtually every writer I know who's signed songs with publishers has
gotten a reversion. There are some pulbishers who won't give them.
I'm currently negotiating with one such publisher. Normally, I
wouldn't sign without a reversion, but this particular publisher would
be an exception if I can get a key-person clause, meaning that the
publisher keeps the rights to the song as long as this individual is
there plugging it. If that person leaves before the song has been
cut, I'd be able to get the song back.
:> Also, if you want to find the artist who'd be willing to record your
:> songs yourself, do you really need a full publisher, or should you just
:> stick to someone who's gonna administer your songs for a fee? I have no
:> experience in the music business, but I heard of some large companies
:> administering catalogues for 15-25 percent of the (publisher's?) income.
:
:More like 50%. and Your not going to get near any sort of big time artist
:unless you know someone or happen to have the right connections..
50% for administration is unheard of. 15-25% is more reasonable.
50-100% is usually what a publisher will want for full-service
publishing, which includes songplugging.
:> What are the disadvantages of having a publisher only administering your
:> songs and doing all of the promotion yourself?(Apart from the obvious,
:> that its hard to get in contact with recording artists)
The obvious is the answer. If you can get your songs to the artists,
producers, music supervisors, etc., go ahead and do it yourself.
Rick Paul
MidiMan <mid...@west.net> wrote in article
<01bbea40$0e448a40$25e1...@west.net.west.net>...
> Suchka <suc...@ragnarok.pomona.edu> wrote in article
> <32B1A8...@ragnarok.pomona.edu>...
> > And since we started to talk about it, to the writers who secured a
> > publishing contract: how hard/how common is it to get a reversion
clause
> > on your songs?
>
on
> the three music publishers Ive been unlucky enough to deal with so far
(Ill
> stop before I get started, after all, we need bad people to have good
> people.)
I can only speak from personal experience, but I'm a newcomer, and I got a
reversion clause in the contracts I've signed. In fact, I didn't even have
to ask for it, though I would have had it not been offered.
In my opinion, a reversion clause is very important for single song deals.
Basically what it does is ensures that the publisher will try to perform
what you're signing them up to do (i.e. get the song cut), or that you at
least have an escape hatch if they do not. Without this, what is to
prevent the unscrupulous publisher from just signing a contract with you to
make you go away (i.e. since they're really not bound to do anything for
you unless your song gets cut), or just signing everything in sight, for
that matter, to play the odds that one or more of the songs signed might
get cut through the writers' own efforts, and the percentages obtained will
eventually add up to something? (Of course, this is not to say that
publishers that refuse to offer a reversion cause are necessarily
unscrupulous, just that you'd better be darn sure the publisher who won't
give you this is going to perform for you, or you just don't mind throwing
25-50% of the total revenues from your song away for nothing.)
> > Also, if you want to find the artist who'd be willing to record your
> > songs yourself, do you really need a full publisher, or should you just
> > stick to someone who's gonna administer your songs for a fee? I have no
> > experience in the music business, but I heard of some large companies
> > administering catalogues for 15-25 percent of the (publisher's?)
income.
>
> More like 50%. and Your not going to get near any sort of big time artist
> unless you know someone or happen to have the right connections..
50% is typical of a co-publishing deal. 15-25% is more typical of an
administration deal.
> > What are the disadvantages of having a publisher only administering
your
> > songs and doing all of the promotion yourself?(Apart from the obvious,
> > that its hard to get in contact with recording artists)
If you can succeed in getting the cuts yourself, and don't mind having to
do ALL the promotional work, then an administration deal is probably the
way to go. Of course, you probably need to get some cuts before a
publisher will be willing to sign on to do this for you since there is
nothing for them to do until you get something cut.
On the other hand, if you'd rather take advantage of the contacts of a
publisher for trying to get songs cut, then you will probably benefit from
the co-publishing deal. Of course, this doesn't mean you should completely
stop pitching your own material where you can. It just helps expand your
horizons. In the end, though, you are responsible for your own success,
even if picking the right publisher is a big part of that.
One thing I can say is that I feel having a publisher represent my songs
has already been some benefit to me, even though they've only been doing
this a very short while and haven't really had the time to get cuts yet.
In one case, I had pitched one of my songs to the personal manager/A&R rep
for an artist in a blind pitch (i.e. I sent it in by mail to one of the NAS
pitch sessions), and it had gotten picked up. Since I found out about the
pick up after I'd signed this song to a co-publishing deal, I referred this
lead to my publisher who then followed up with a very professional letter,
and got a favorable response (so far anyway) from the contact. While I
could have done much the same thing, because the publisher also represented
other songs that might be right for this artist, he was able to do a much
more professional job than I would have done, and this area of followup has
always been one of my weaker, and least comfortable, areas anyway.
The bottom line is you need to weigh what the specific publisher can do for
you, and how much it is worth to you to have them do it. After all,
especially in the single song deal, anything that helps further your
songwriting career significantly is likely to be worth SOMETHING.
Rick
--
==================================
Rick Paul
Lake Forest, California (USA)
E-mail: rick...@earthlink.net
Web: http://home.earthlink.net/~rickpaul/
==================================
Larry Collins
>The obvious is the answer. If you can get your songs to the artists,
>producers, music supervisors, etc., go ahead and do it yourself.
That "etc." to include negotiating with labels on things like what
percentage of CD's pressed will actually have royalties paid on them,
allowances for breakage and returns, etc. etc.
If he knows what he's doing, a publisher can do a lot in negotiation
to make sure he doesn't get screwed out of too much of his 50% after
the song is cut, and he protects the writer's 50% in the process!
Seth Jackson
On Tue, 17 Dec 1996 07:48:59 GMT, Bes...@flash.net (Larry Collins)
wrote:
:>The obvious is the answer. If you can get your songs to the artists,
That's true. And if you do get your song into a film, you need to
negotiate a license fee. A good publisher would know how to handle
such negotiations.
gston...@aol.com
Its a pablo picasso
and a water color sceane
of a poet and banjo -dreaming the dream
how the bard rambled on
constructing his rhymes
he payed peculiar attention to his meter and time
creating a circle with line after line
of the same sorry dirge to the pale of the moon
how the lover he 'd loved had left him too soon
And the strings of his banjo all rusty and worn
ring the same sorry melodies of sadness and scorn
the dream he was dreaming would never be born
But the poet still singing to the crowds in the park
finds his melody lingering long after dark
he had hoped for a living making musical rhymes
but the songs he was singing brought him nickles and dimes
Its a pablo picasso now a still life sceane
J.D.K.
gston...@aol.com wrote ...
> Its a pablo picasso
> and a water color sceane
Do you have a chorus?? It all sounds pretty much the same feel. You need
something to change it up a bit, in my opinion.
Karen
--
".........if you at all feel any compassion for the young lady who's
spilling her heart onto the floor at the front of the room, you might be so
inclined as to make a small donation in da begging jar....."
Gstone1470
how bout one chorus like this:
Chorus #1 ( maybe I should start the song with this)
none have I heard here play so wildy well
as the man on the corner his guitar casts a spell
could we sit here and listen tuneful refrain
we never walk down this pathway and may never again?
Pergamond
I think your lyric is lovely.
I have one comment and one question Question: why is it called the
guitarist when he plays a banjo. Is it because of that guitar painting by
Picasso during his blue period? No need to change; I just wondered.
You might want to say in the last line, "It's a Pablo Picasso but a still
life scene" rather than "now a still life scene." I would try both to see
how they play. Record on a tape and play it back to yourself.
The implication is that in spite of the beauty he's created, this guy
ain't goin nowhere. "But" might convey that better than "Now" It's not
as though a hell of a lot of change has occured to warrant the "Now."
IMHO
Seth Jackson
This reads like very nice poetry. There's a difference between poetry
and song lyrics, and this is structured like a poem rather than a
lyric.
On 19 Dec 1996 21:17:38 GMT, gston...@aol.com wrote:
: Its a pablo picasso
:and a water color sceane
:of a poet and banjo -dreaming the dream
--
Gstone1470
sorry should be ....listen to his tuneful refrain
Also chorus#2 could be
he has artfully mastered the frets and the strings
the notes are like voices and hear how he sings
could we stop here and listen to his mournful refrain
we never walked down this wlakway and may never again
Scott Burright
On Sat, 21 Dec 1996, Seth Jackson wrote:
> This reads like very nice poetry. There's a difference between poetry
> and song lyrics, and this is structured like a poem rather than a
> lyric.
I can see your point, Seth, but I could also apply the same reasoning to
some great lyrics. Al Stewart's "Year of the Cat" leaps to mind:
On a morning from a Bogart movie
In a country where they turned back time
You go strolling through the crowd like Peter Lorre
Contemplating a crime
She comes out of the sun in a silk dress running
Like a watercolor in the rain...
...and so forth. It occurs to me that a dichotomy between "lyric" and
"poetry" might be bogus, since "lyric poetry" is itself a recognized
and beloved genre.
Can you say what makes the difference between poetry and lyrics? I'd be
interested. Hell, we could fight about it, which is usually the way to
get a long-lived thread going around here, just as long as we don't get
too serious about it.
The reason I'm interested in this question is that some of my favorite
songs scan well as poetry, and some of my favorite poetry sings well as
song. Rudyard Kipling's "Gunga Din" as covered by Jim Croce comes to
mind. In fact, I've just done an arrangement of Byron's "We'll Go No More
a'Rovin'" that I consider, uh, killer.
Put 'em up, Jackson! (Remember, pull those punches.)
--Scott Burright
"Most of our future lies ahead."
-- Denny Crum, Louisville basketball coach
Seth Jackson
On Sat, 21 Dec 1996 21:33:11 -0500, Scott Burright
<sbur...@discover.wright.edu> wrote:
:On Sat, 21 Dec 1996, Seth Jackson wrote:
:
:> This reads like very nice poetry. There's a difference between poetry
:> and song lyrics, and this is structured like a poem rather than a
:> lyric.
:
:I can see your point, Seth, but I could also apply the same reasoning to
:some great lyrics. Al Stewart's "Year of the Cat" leaps to mind:
If I'm not mistaken, "Year of the Cat" has a fairly standard song
structure. The lyric in this thread doesn't seem to have any such
structure.
:Can you say what makes the difference between poetry and lyrics? I'd be
:interested. Hell, we could fight about it, which is usually the way to
:get a long-lived thread going around here, just as long as we don't get
:too serious about it.
Lyrics should be copyrightable. Ooops...sorry, it was a conditioned
reflex! :^)
I'd say it's largely a question of structure. Yes, I know, there are
successful lyrics with no structure. "Thick as a Brick" is one of my
favorite albums of all time. But there really are no "songs" on that
album.
In the world of "art", anything goes, more or less. One can write
anything with words and music and call it a song. How it will affect
an audience is another question.
:Put 'em up, Jackson! (Remember, pull those punches.)
Your logic is flawed. I've refuted the fallacy of your irrational
thinking. Ooops...sorry...those reflexes again! :^)
Gstone1470
Seth is right, it does read like a poem
but it is also a song -you never know the song by the lyric alone though
look at the lyric to "hello goodbye" (beatles), reads rather dumb - but
its a sonic and musical experience quite an example of qhat can be done
with 2 words
gary stone
check out moody river roll and roll tell me if this is more of a lyric in
your mind seth.
Scott Burright
On Sun, 22 Dec 1996, Seth Jackson wrote:
> If I'm not mistaken, "Year of the Cat" has a fairly standard song
> structure. The lyric in this thread doesn't seem to have any such
> structure.
I getcha. Does this structure have something to do with repitition? It
occurs to me that one of the examples I used, "Gunga Din," has a very
song-like structure in this regard.
"It was 'Din, Din, Din!' / The bullets kickin' dust up on the green..."
(shiver)
> : Hell, we could fight about it, which is usually the way to
> :get a long-lived thread going around here, just as long as we don't get
> :too serious about it.
>
> Lyrics should be copyrightable. Ooops...sorry, it was a conditioned
> reflex! :^)
How unethical! Oops, I've been conditioned, too. That wasn't my INTENT.
> :Put 'em up, Jackson! (Remember, pull those punches.)
>
> Your logic is flawed. I've refuted the fallacy of your irrational
> thinking. Ooops...sorry...those reflexes again! :^)
That's OK, since you were ascribing specialized definitions to the plain
meaning of my words.... AIIIEEE, I'm doing it, too!
Gstone1470
Seth is faced with the modern dilema of how it is you make ART
marketable -most people don't know who picasso is, however
the do understand: "drop kick me jesus thru the goal post of my life" -
a big hit incidently.
Seth Jackson
On 23 Dec 1996 14:20:28 GMT, gston...@aol.com (Gstone1470) wrote:
+Seth is faced with the modern dilema of how it is you make ART
+marketable -most people don't know who picasso is, however
+the do understand: "drop kick me jesus thru the goal post of my life" -
+a big hit incidently.
It's not quite as much of a dilemma as one might think. Certain types of art
are marketable, and certain types aren't. One type isn't necessarily better
than another. It's frustrating that we can't express our full range of
creativity in a marketable way, but there's still lots of room for expression
in the commercial styles.
Scott Burright
On 23 Dec 1996, Gstone1470 wrote:
> Seth is faced with the modern dilema of how it is you make ART
> marketable
Art and market have such an unpredictable relationship. Trying to serve
them both is, arguably (literally?), like trying to serve God and mammon.
Some say you can't serve two masters.
> -most people don't know who picasso is
Sure, he cut off his ear while painting the roof of the Cistern Chapel,
right? And his paintings still grace the walls of The Loo.
>, however
> the do understand: "drop kick me jesus thru the goal post of my life" -
> a big hit incidently.
Wow, Picasso wrote that?
Larry Collins
spe...@cinenet.net (Seth Jackson) wrote:
>That's true. And if you do get your song into a film, you need to
>negotiate a license fee. A good publisher would know how to handle
>such negotiations.
Make that "Should know how". It's not hard for someone to be a
publisher on paper only.
Some can't even find a cut, much less know what to do with it if it
hits.
I've seen a couple that give me the shakes when I think about new
writers pinning their hopes on them. :-)
Seth Jackson
On Thu, 26 Dec 1996 21:54:04 GMT, Bes...@flash.net (Larry Collins) wrote:
:spe...@cinenet.net (Seth Jackson) wrote:
:
:>That's true. And if you do get your song into a film, you need to
:>negotiate a license fee. A good publisher would know how to handle
:>such negotiations.
:
:Make that "Should know how". It's not hard for someone to be a
:publisher on paper only.
:
:Some can't even find a cut, much less know what to do with it if it
:hits.
Yes, but I said, "a good publisher". A *good* publisher *would* know.