8Sided Blog

the scene celebrates itself

Music Library Warning Bells

by // Leave a Comment

The DIY Musician on the controversial practice of retitling:

When you sign a non-exclusive agreement, you may have multiple parties wanting to collect public performance royalties on their specific placements only. The way to achieve this is by registering the song with the performing rights organization under a new title.

(This) usually means that the licensing company collects royalties for those placements in perpetuity (forever). If these royalties are theirs to collect forever, this could impact the value of your publishing catalog in the future, if you enter into a traditional publishing or co-publishing deal. It also causes confusion for music supervisors, studios, and the performing rights organizations when multiple parties are claiming ownership over the same work, which can often lead to content providers not receiving royalties they’re owed.


Before signing any catalog to a music library always specifically ask if they retitle. A lot of libraries have sneaky ways to insert retitling rights into their agreements that you may miss if you’re not used to looking for these sorts of provisions. If you think a ‘non-exclusive’ agreement means the library isn’t retitling then know that you’re probably wrong.

Retitling is messy business. It may be on its way out of favor thanks to audio identification software getting better and starting to be used by PROs for royalty tracking. If you have a lot of retitled songs in your repetoire then the emergence of audio royalty tracking could make your life hell … the retitled ‘versions’ of your songs could be the ones getting identified, which means the library owning that title will be getting the royalties whether they are responsible for the license or not.

A friend had his tracks retitled by a library that ended up submitting the new titles to a bunch of third parties (something else he overlooked as allowed in the agreement). Somehow these ended up at Shazam. My friend had a semi-popular song that this library retitled, and any time someone would ‘Shazam’ it, the re-title came up rather than the actual title that could be found in stores. He was able to contact Shazam and get this fixed but what a nightmare.

So, yeah … avoid any deals that involve retitling.

The DIY Musician article has a lot of other useful advice for things to look out for when signing catalog to music libraries. I’d also pay close attnetion to #5, “Limit the number of non-exclusive licensing partners you work with.”

How To Ignore YouTube Completely

by // Leave a Comment

Music Business Worldwide:

Over the past year, major labels appear to have woken up to a crucial fact: when fans are listening on YouTube, they’re not listening on other services… and YouTube isn’t paying nearly enough.



According to IFPI estimates, YouTube and other ‘exclusively free, ad-funded platforms’ contributed $641m to the global record industry last year. Subscription streaming services coughed up $1.6bn.



That fact becomes infinitely more damning when you combine it with this one: YouTube has over a billion monthly users, and they love to play music. There were just 41m people paying for music streaming in 2014. Recent Ipsos research even found that more than a quarter of internet users (27%) listen to music on YouTube without even watching the video.



Spotify realises that all this represents a unique opportunity to debunk a music biz myth that has frustrated the Swedish company since birth. It’s the one that goes: YouTube is a friendly promotional tool, while Spotify is an income-focused commercial service.


One hold-over from the days of physical distribution is that feeling that your digital release should be available in as many stores as possible. I remember thinking this way as well in the early days of digital sales … I felt my music should just simply be available in every digital shop the same as how I wanted my vinyl releases in every mom and pop record store. But then came the realization that not all these outlets paid the same (or even at the same consistent time), and that some that didn’t push or weren’t selling adequate numbers of my label’s music were taking up as much of my effort as those that followed through.

Targeting the outlets that give you the most benefit is wise … sort of a loose application of the Pareto principle. If fans are using YouTube to stream your music, but Spotify or Apple Music are paying more per stream, then by all means you should work at pulling the focus away from YouTube.

One problem: if you or your distributor are providing music to Google for Google Play or their related services then you are probably opted in to the YouTube Music Key program. A static, generic video using the cover art will be automatically created for your song and available on YouTube which could torpedo this strategy of exception. Even the One Direction song referenced throughout this MBW article is on YouTube via Music Key. However, as far as I know, YouTube Music Key videos are not available outside of the US due to licensing restrictions … but I’m sure this will eventually change.

“A Battle That Is Primarily Being Conducted By Avatars”

by // Leave a Comment

The Week:

How did we get here? There is always the possibility, suggested by many, that America is sinking into an Idiocracy-style dystopia, but that explanation feels too pat. Rather, the success of Trump’s campaign is at least partly a reflection of the way the news media has changed. In addition to (sometimes literally) providing the candidate with a stage, the media used to act as a filter between candidate and voter, couching the candidate’s unvarnished spiel with context, contrary opinions, facts. This is no longer necessarily the case; instead, the media increasingly tries to collapse the space between the politician and his constituent, thrusting everyone, media included, into a shared chaos known as social media.



You are watching a battle that is primarily being conducted by avatars, in a flattened space about the size of a phone, where everyone, from activists to reporters to campaign flacks to President Obama, is braying for attention. As I type this, dozens of operatives are spinning the debate we just watched, dragging an event from the physical world into the digital realm where we spend more and more of our time, and where every gesture, every upload, every expression of outrage, empathy, kindness, or anger, is simultaneously a performance.

Apple Invention Looks To Revive The Mixtape, With A Digital Twist

by // Leave a Comment

AppleInsider:

Described in a patent application titled “Digital mixed tapes” published by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Thursday, Apple’s idea is to tap into the nostalgia associated with swapping analog cassette tapes. More specifically, Apple is investigating methods by which personalized albums can be created, purchased and gifted from a cloud-based music service.



The system’s mechanics are based on existing digital storefront technology and would therefore be familiar to anyone who has used iTunes or similar online services. Users select songs, movies, images and other digital media from their own library or an online store, then arrange the content, playback options and more to suit their needs.


This could be seen as further evidence of the influence of Apple’s ‘tech-savvy musicians’ I mentioned previously, finding inspiration in how some pre-digital methods of sharing music created meaningful connections. The ‘mixtape’ idea is also a creative extension of the popular ‘For You’ tab as Apple doubles down on curation and playlisting. Of course, they could damage the idea by making it too complicated, as Apple is wont to do with their music applications. Granted, it’s only a patent filing but there’s a lot packed in there … is the option to “restrict a recipient’s ability to fast forward” really worth adding an extra button?

Now, complexity be damned, if Apple wanted to go all out they could integrate this with GarageBand, adding some Ableton-like syncing capabilty, so users (non-DJs) could share and post ‘mixed’ sets from the Apple Music catalog. Boom.

Art Of The Record Sleeve

by // Leave a Comment

DJBroadcast:

The ‘arty’ alternative bands of the 80s like New Order and Joy Division rarely used type over their imagery, and Peter Saville (graphic designer and art director of Factory Records) had always sold that as a way to create a global secret. A secret that would only be known by 500,000 fans, but anyone else going into the record shop wouldn’t have a clue who the group were. There were many record covers that came out looking obscure but that certain indie aesthetic wasn’t seen as commercial back then. But now there has been a 180-degree turn as the way that people browse and consume music has changed and is entirely online. – Philip Marshall


DJBroadcast is serving up a great series of interviews with record sleeve designers. It’s both inspiring and a tad melancholic, as I of miss the days when cover design (whether digital or physical) wasn’t the afterthought that it seems to be for most labels now.

Anyway, the site is two parts deep into the series. Part 1 (HERE) speaks with Philip Marshall who has done work for ZTT, one of my favorite labels with regards to design. Part 2 (HERE) features Lindsay Todd of Firecracker Records who uses his own printing press to fulfill his sleeve design dreams. Good stuff … I’m looking forward to future installments.

Beatport Freezes Payments To Labels – And Gives Artists Just 5% Of Streaming Money

by // Leave a Comment

Music Business Worldwide:

In a letter to music rights-holders sent last night and obtained by MBW, Beatport told labels that SFX’s ‘going private’ procedure had “trapped certain earned label payments”. Beatport believes the process will be “coming to an end in the next few weeks, at which time all payments will be able to be made”.



The big problem for the small labels we’ve spoken to is one of cash flow: this blocked payment covers three months of income, from April-June, and was due to be paid last Thursday (July 30). With Beatport accounting for 90% of digital income for some dance labels, such a delay in a primary revenue source risks badly damaging their stability.



This is pretty bad news for the labels concerned, and I’m sure Beatport’s actions here are not as villianous as some in the online world are making it out to be. They are a corporation, and this is the kind of thing corporations do. However, any label deriving 90% of its digital income from one source — and one that’s outside of its control — should be prepared in advance for situations such as this. (And — broken record time — that also applies when labels depend on something like Facebook for their entire fan outreach strategy.)

Meanwhile, Beatport is now taking on SoundCloud by permitting anyone to upload and monetize their own original tracks onto the platform. But there’s a big catch for artists: according to the terms and conditions of Beatport, it will only pay a measly 5% of income for plays of these user-generated streams. That’s for all rights, too.



I was hopeful when Beatport was just setting this up … I spoke to someone there about how they were aiming for this service to be seen as a monetizable alternative to SoundCloud. Using embeddable players that might pay some royalty would be a game-changer, as long as including advertising on our content wasn’t the trade-off. This 5% figure is disappointing, but I don’t understand where it’s coming from. This implies there’s another 95% that is going elsewhere. Their agreement speaks of the payment coming from a ‘pro rata share of funds made available for the payment of streams.’ So, there’s a pool of funds for this royalty (as I understand it), and then a set share of that pool designated for each play, but the label / artist only gets 5% of that. Hmm? Anyway, I look forward to someone explaining this further.

Update: Sources Tell Music Week Beatport Has Paid ‘Trapped’ Royalties To Majors

According to Music Week sources Beatport has already released those “trapped” royalty payments to major labels, but neglected to do the same for indies. Music Week understands that the UK’s indie trade body AIM hasn’t taken kindly to the treatment and has contacted Beatport demanding to see its members paid within 24 hours.

Whoa, if true, but not surprising. The three majors presently have a hold on the ‘new music economy’ via their consistent threats of litigation and non-participation. The Louis CK model more and more seems like a great idea for indies and self-released musicians who want to avoid getting involved in the mess.

Optimo Music Clashes With Sony Over Post-Punk Compilation

by // Leave a Comment

Resident Advisor:

Sony’s objection is to the compilation’s original title, Now That’s What I Call DIY! (Cult Classics From The Post-Punk Era 1978-82), which it says infringed its copyrighted Now That’s What I Call Music! series. Optimo Music head JD Twitch told RA: “I couldn’t reach an agreement with Sony to modify the existing sleeves that was either satisfactory to them or cost effective to me, so the original sleeves will be destroyed.” He says the process cost “several thousand pounds,” adding: “While the whole thing has been a nightmare and extremely annoying, really, the only person I am angry with is myself for not even considering it might be an issue.”


Oops. Regardless, the compilation looks very interesting. I’m stumped by most of the track list and that era’s loosely defined ‘post-punk’ is probably my favorite genre. I’m on board.

Follow Up – re: Spotify’s Discovery Chart

by // Leave a Comment

Stefan Prescott writes to us:

Before you dismiss (Spotify’s) discovery chart, remember it’s the same model as we had at our record stores when folks would come in and we would hand them a pile of records. Spotify have nailed doing this at scale based on listener’s data. I love the list; every week so far I have added music from their discovery chart to my various playlists. They have also solved the issue that iTunes and Amazon have not been able to do in their downloading model: offering visibility to millions of songs that are not necessarily new releases that folks would never hear otherwise. This list is not something derived from record label / artist manager marketing efforts. It works because the data is personalized. Finally, from experience, nobody recommends with 100% accuracy, but at least I am getting thirty tracks a week that I am interested to hear.


Great comments, which inspire me to investigate Spotify’s auto-curation a bit further.

I responded:

I am mostly interested in the differences in methodology rather than any outright dismissal, and I see Spotify’s as more rewarding for emerging artists which is where my preference actually lies. I just know, on a visceral level, the ‘For You’ tab on iTunes Music _feels_ more personalized, even though Spotify’s discovery list may actually be more so.


Those seemingly intangible factors that can make digitally delivered music connect or not connect with individuals … this is something that I will certainly be exploring further on this page.

What Happens When An Artist Gets Dropped?

by // Leave a Comment

From Noisey, a bit of a glimpse into the major label – artist business relationship and why signing that big deal is often more stick than carrot:

One thing Mike Smith (President of Music at Virgin EMI) is clear about, is that artists need to establish their own level of autonomy, so that their reliance is not entirely on the label. “Now more than ever it’s beholden on an artist and a manager to put the artist in a place where they are not vulnerable. The more work that an artist can do themselves, the stronger they’ll be. Because, what often can happen is an act can get signed on the vision of an A&R person but there just aren’t enough other things going on.”



Basically, whenever an artist enters any situation with a major label, they need to keep grounded, and keep their own worth at the forefront of their minds. “An artist gets it to a point where they’re already self sustainable and then labels swoop in and there’s going to come a point where these artists realize the reason why they’re swooping in and giving them all this money is because they can make ten times as much if they just keep doing what they’re doing,” JMSN (Christian Berishaj) says. “Take Chance the Rapper, he’s been offered million dollar deals and turned them down because obviously if they’re offering you million dollar deals then labels know they can make a whole lot more than that from you. When I meet with labels I ask, ‘What can you provide me that I’m not able to do myself?’ and more often than not there’s not a solid answer besides radio. Who the fuck is going to radio to discover music anymore? We live in a different time.”