8Sided Blog

the scene celebrates itself

A Mess of Headaches

by // Leave a Comment

I have nothing that coherent (i.e., reassuring) to say about Songtradr’s acquisition of Bandcamp. There’s an opinion that Songtradr appears to be a better fit for what Bandcamp does than Epic Games. I’m not so sure. Songtradr is interested in exploiting art (‘exploiting’ is used here factually, not judgmentally) rather than creating art. One could argue Epic at least had a hand in creation — I’m sure many of its game designers consider themselves artists.

A company changing hands in under two years doesn’t bode well. The sale also may betray a purpose behind Epic’s mystifying-at-the-time purchase of Bandcamp. Is it far-fetched to suspect Bandcamp was a chess piece in Epic’s protracted battle against Apple over the high % take from app store sales? For this reason, Bandcamp doesn’t allow purchases from its app, as Apple would compromise Bandcamp’s payment of around 82% of sales directly to artists. At the time of Bandcamp’s acquisition, this tale of the small fry (artists) suffering under the heel of the giant evil villain (Apple) was helpful as a narrative Epic wanted to argue in court. As Apple prevailed for the most part, perhaps Bandcamp’s advantage to Epic expired.

Others have noted that Bandcamp successfully unionized right after Epic’s acquisition. Bandcamp could be seen as a hot potato that might be hot enough to trigger similar moves throughout the larger company.

As for Songtradr, one must consider how a company expects to make money from something like Bandcamp. Songtradr’s statement promises that this new arrangement will “offer Bandcamp artists the ability and choice to have their music licensed to all forms of media.” Sounds great from the outside, but Songtradr presently charges its artists to enter into licensing opportunities. It’s not a lot — $50 a year for the privilege — but pay-to-play licensing platforms tend to put a bad taste in my mouth. And Songtradr utilizes all-you-can-eat licensing models. That means a business or licensee pays a yearly flat fee and can use as much music from Songtradr’s catalog as they wish.1Though I’m sure high-profile licenses like TV shows are exempt, I don’t know how many of those kinds of licenses the platform really does. Most prominent music supervisors steer clear of quantity-over-quality outlets like this. There’s not a whole lot of money for the artist under this model, and it’s doubtful a meaningful percentage makes back their yearly $50.2I’m happy to hear otherwise in the comments from artists with positive experiences.

The real question is how Songtradr can navigate the uncertainty about music rights pervasive on the Bandcamp platform. This wasn’t a problem before, as Bandcamp never got too deep into any usage scenarios that required scrutiny. That’s why the platform is rife with songs containing uncleared samples, cover songs that haven’t been properly registered, and even ‘bootleg’ remixes and appropriation of others’ recordings. Before, no one really seemed to care. But it’s a potential legal disaster for a platform that hopes to add Bandcamp artists to its licensing catalog simply by having them opt-in and pay a fee.

Songtradr will obviously require artists to sign an online contract stating that they own all the rights to the music and that they’re responsible for any legal trouble. But many artists have no idea about the rights to their songs. I still run into producers who think if they’ve bought a song, that gives them a license to sample it at will. And there are others who believe their unique ‘take’ on a classic tune makes them the credited writer. More often, many artists will opt in without consulting (and maybe without identifying) their songwriting — or label! — partners, inspiring a whole mess of headaches. Sure, an online contract with the artist will allow Songtradr to shift the legal blame, but believe me, after a few mid-profile licensing snafus where the client has to redo a project, all platform credibility is lost.

But what happens to those of us who love and use Bandcamp? As I told an internet friend, “Like reciting ‘memento mori,’ we need to always think about what we do in a world without Bandcamp because that day will come.”

I wrote in a prior blog post that having a central hub for your artistic endeavors that you own and control is essential, preferably accompanied by an email mailing list. If Bandcamp gets destroyed and your ‘store’ moves elsewhere, you need a way for your audience to know. Better yet, have your music also available to stream and purchase on your website or hub. Then, if Bandcamp or whatever is no longer an option, your audience will still have the means to access your music while you explore the next steps.

Elaborating further on this point, Peter Kirn wrote something important about Bandcamp and any potential replacement on his Create Digital Media blog:

Honestly, the real problem is, given the nature of platform capitalism and the governance of private corporations being for investor benefit, ultimately all these tools are doomed. It’s not really fair to say these services are artist-first, because artists ultimately have limited say over them. That’s not to say we shouldn’t use these services, but the dependency on them – and the extent to which we’re serving someone else’s needs – should absolutely be a worry.

That’s the rub. Not only should artists have hubs and sites under their command, but we need to start thinking about true artist-first tools that operate on community rather than profit. I feel that the rise of things like ActivityPub is pointing the way. And I know smart people are working right now on this sort of thing for the discovery and distribution of music.

I’m hopeful that the uncertainty around Bandcamp might be the thing that moves thought into action. When you consider how interests are presently aligned, here’s never been a better time to make something new and important happen for the betterment of independent music.

The Ongoing Collision of Music and Podcasts

by // 1 Comment

Recently, the co-host of the Geeks and Beats podcast posted the news that Spotify removed all 250 episodes of his show. This inexplicable act was the result of a takedown request from Universal Music, caused by an allegation of copyright infringement. The notice, sent by Spotify, did not specify what triggered the complaint, so the show’s host doesn’t know how to respond:

As you can see, we have no idea what’s being contested. All we know is that Geeks&Beats has been kicked off Spotify. And not just for the mysterious offense. All 250+ episodes are gone. Wow. Obviously, though, the sniffing algorithms found something and triggered the takedown. Try appealing to a robot.

It would be great if a copyright identification system for podcasts resembled Content ID on YouTube, where the use of songs is approved and, if desired, monetized. Perhaps that’s on the way. But, Spotify’s present one-strike-and-you’re-toast application of the tool is a problem.

If you recall, SoundExchange and PodcastMusic.com are preparing to launch a music licensing platform for podcasters.1However, I haven’t seen any updates on the launch since August, so I don’t know when this service will finally become available. Drawing upon SoundExchange’s extensive collection of pre-approved masters, the platforms expect labels and artists to set licensing prices for catalog easily, and podcasters to easily obtain those license for their shows. The service will include commercially known songs as the majors come on board.

But how will Spotify’s song-sniffer know that the podcaster acquired a legitimate license from SoundExchange? I don’t see the two platforms ‘talking’ to each other to verify music usage. What I expect to happen: Spotify automatically pulls the podcast down (every episode!). The podcaster disputes the claim with proof of the license, with no idea if she’s sending the correct documentation for the disputed song. And then she waits for the podcast to (hopefully) get reinstated. How long do you think that will take? And if it’s a podcast that regularly uses music from SoundExchange’s licensing platform, then fielding takedown notices could become the podcaster’s part-time job.

The intersection of music and podcasts is more like a collision. It’s a total mess. And the indispensable podcast The Future Of What covers the topic in detail in the latest episode. Listen and feel the frustration of everyone involved.

🔗→ This is how insane music copyright claims have become: Totally. F**cked.
🔗→ Episode #178 : Licensing Music For Podcasts

When Small Podcasts Want Big Music

by // 3 Comments

Vintage Microphone

Billboard:

For about a year, music-business sources say, rights holders have been monitoring podcasts more aggressively for unlicensed content. “We realized we were undervaluing the podcast market,” says one source, “and started proactively approaching people who had been using music without proper licenses.” […]

Podcasters who use music say their business is evolving from an anything-goes atmosphere reminiscent of early hip-hop sampling or online radio into an industry that depends on licensing — one, some say, in which only big companies will be able to afford the resulting fees.

I like the comparison with the early days of sampling and online radio. Podcasts have legally existed under-the-radar for over a decade, inviting the ‘wild west’ cliche when it comes to music licensing. The media attention given to Spotify’s acquisitions and start-ups like Luminary is a cause for monied interests to sit up and notice. Though most podcasts continue to live in the underground, the industry is no longer an underground industry.

Those ‘underground’ podcasts — 94% of podcasts supposedly have less than 5000 downloads an episode1A statistic that I heard repeatedly at Podcast Movement 2019 but I can’t find an online source to back it up. — have little separation from the Mark Marons and the Conan O’Briens. We judge and hype-up the industry according to its successes and highest valuation. So there’s not much wiggle room for a podcast in the 94-percentile to license a well-known piece of music at an appropriately adjusted fee. And to be fair, the rights-holders for, say, “Bohemian Rhapsody” can’t maintain the infrastructure to field thousands of small-paying requests.

Another problem is the archival nature of podcasts. Licenses are more expensive the longer they are active, so licenses with set terms — such as a one-year license — are a way to cut costs. Perpetuity is ideal, and is standard in film and television licensing, but can be out-of-range for podcast budgets. The Billboard article notes that “an annual track license generally costs between $500 and $2,000 for the master recording, plus the same amount for publishing … and must be renewed for a podcast to remain online.” A podcaster in this arrangement would pay this fee annually or have no choice but to delete the archive.

Here’s Music Ally’s take:

Now imagine the admin (let alone the mounting costs) for a podcast that puts out shows on a weekly or even daily basis. […] That’s not an argument for rightsholders not to be compensated for use of music in shows that can reach wide audiences, but the annual-renewal model seems fraught with challenges: we’ve seen some catalogue games ‘deleted’ by their developers because their music licences elapsed, and the games weren’t generating enough revenues any more to make renewals pay off. Could the same thing be happening for older podcasts?

An in-the-works solution is the forthcoming SoundExchange/SourceAudio collaboration that I wrote about previously. I’m sure annual renewals from podcasts will be required through this system as well but at a much lower cost2Supposedly this service will adjust the licensing fee based on the podcast’s estimated listener numbers. and the assistance of the platform in keeping track of it all.

A more immediate solution for the indie podcaster is to eschew “Bohemian Rhapsody” for independent music, focusing on labels and artists that are receptive and probably maintain all of their rights. Most small labels I know would be happy to have music featured in a podcast, or anywhere for that matter. Of course, that’s no help if you’re doing an episode about Queen. But maybe there’s already too much out there about Queen and not enough about emerging bands. Consider giving the airtime to an independent artist that would enjoy some podcast love.

Moving Toward a Music Solution for Podcasts

by // 2 Comments

I often talk to podcasters about music rights, but we never get anywhere. They want to know how to use recorded songs in their episodes. You think it would be easy — plenty of podcasts are using music and getting away with it. I suspect they’re just flying under the radar. Could fair use come into play? My friends’ podcasts could be considered informational, talking about the music and the artists behind the songs. But claiming fair use is a throw of the dice, and you need to be prepared to go to court if a cease-and-desist letter appears in your inbox. ‘Fair use’ is something that’s decided in a courtroom.

The problem is that there are no set guidelines for using music in podcasts. It’s a gray area, that ‘wild west’ that people bring up when discussing content rights on the internet. Podcasts are a combination of a download and an interactive stream — one or the other or both can happen. So the rights may fall closer to those of a song released to iTunes and Apple Music than licensed to a video or for radio play. On top of that, the usage is a derivative one. You’re incorporating — thus technically altering — someone else’s work in your podcast.

Right now, the solution is to locate and directly contact all of a song’s rights-holders. Easier said than done! Many songs, especially the popular ones, have multiple rights-holders to find. In my experience, Google won’t be much help. It’s the same process that a music supervisor goes through to license for a major motion picture. But, as we learned at the Podcast Movement conference in Orlando last week, 94% of podcasts have less than 5000 downloads per episode. These aren’t operations with the resources of a movie studio. Or the clout and money for that matter — imagine negotiating with a music publisher over a song for your fledgling comedy podcast.

So, yes, the Podcast Movement conference happened last week. And, with premeditated timing, an announcement was made right before the conference doors opened. The news offers a music solution for podcasters. Here’s an excerpt of the press release from SoundExchange:

SoundExchange today announced plans to collaborate with SourceAudio to provide a new solution for the rapidly growing podcast industry to secure music with fully integrated, global licenses. The collaboration would provide Podcastmusic.com, a digital music marketplace for podcasters, with access to SoundExchange’s vast membership of music creators and offer licensing for label and publisher-owned music. […] The service will launch in 2020. Participation in this service by publishers, labels, and other rights owners is on a voluntary basis.

SoundExchange is the rights organization designated by the US Congress to collect royalties on non-interactive digital streaming (such as from SiriusXM or Pandora in old school ‘station’ mode). As it’s the only US organization to handle this type of royalty stream, the catalog of recordings registered with SoundExchange is vast.

In 2017, SoundExchange acquired the Canadian mechanical rights society CMRRA which plays a part in this podcasting arrangement. SoundExchange’s inherent authority over non-interactive streaming doesn’t apply to podcast licensing. But the necessary clearance and royalty collection on the sound recording (mechanical or reproduction rights) is handled through CMRRA. The composition side, overseen by organizations like BMI and ASCAP, is cleared by direct license. The rights-holder opts-in through SoundExchange and grants direct licensing for podcasts.

The catalog will appear on SourceAudio‘s existing site PodcastMusic.com. Presently there is a database of ‘700,000 production and music bed tracks’ that will presumably sit next to recordings pre-cleared through SoundExchange. As SourceAudio is a private company, there have been grumblings about its collaboration with a congressionally mandated organization. I feel this warrants a discussion — undeniably this arrangement gives SourceAudio an upper hand on its competitors. Perhaps SoundExchange can expand this service to other companies that fit professional guidelines, giving the rights-holder an option of libraries to use.

Regardless, this is an exciting development and a massive improvement for podcasters navigating music rights. Recording artists and labels should be pleased, too — this opens a new revenue stream and licensing outlet.

I attended Podcast Movement and sat in on two panels that delved into the mechanics of this emerging podcast music service. A lot of the details are still being worked out. But I can start to see the full picture thanks to remarks by representatives of SourceAudio and SoundExchange and a pair of spirited audience Q&A sessions. Here’s some of what I learned:

  • The service is voluntary for SoundExchange members. All rights-holders — labels, publishers, artists — must opt-in. Prices can be set by rights-holders, which would allow those with high profile content to charge more. However, a $20 per license range is suggested to encourage more licensing frequency. A SourceAudio rep described the ideal model as “Walmart, not Neiman Marcus.”
  • A license will be for one usage in one podcast episode. The licensee will be limited to up to 90 seconds of the song. I assume a shorter usage will reduce the fee.1The fee will also be adjusted according to how many downloads you predict for the episode. There will be two license categories: bumper music, for going in and out of segments; and music used in an informational context, such as historical podcasts about the song or artist played.
  • If the podcaster wishes to license the full song or use the song repeatedly in a series (such as the podcast’s theme song), then the rights-holder(s) must be contacted directly. But fear not — the platform will provide a method of contact for all songs in the catalog. Also, songs in the SoundExchange library not opted-in for pre-cleared podcast licensing are listed as ‘unavailable.’ But a means of contact will be provided for direct negotiation and licensing. Handy. 2I asked if a rights-holder could create exclusions, such as ‘my music can’t be used in conspiracy theory-promoting podcasts.’ It seems there might be something like this in place, but the answer I received was vague.
  • After completing a license, the podcaster downloads the song. This song file will contain a special watermark. Upon the podcast’s completion, I believe the creator is required to upload the show to SourceAudio for verification.3If this is the case, it would be beneficial to integrate this delivery into major podcast distribution platforms. The music’s use in the podcast is tracked via watermark through arrangements with various podcast distribution networks. I imagine Google’s podcast platform plays a large part here as it’s inevitable that some form of Content ID is utilized.4Similarly, any license through the service will also apply to YouTube for ‘video’ streams of podcasts.
  • Though the licenses will be global,5How can one effectively territory-restrict a podcast, anyway? only songwriters registered with US-based PROs can participate at the service’s launch. This issue is probably because not all international PROs recognize direct licensing. The SourceAudio rep assured me the program would be expanded to non-US artists eventually, but there will be some confusion until then. US labels and publishers will be frustrated when they can’t submit songs registered by non-US writers to foreign PROs. Hopefully, this worldwide expansion starts rolling out soon after launch.
  • It appears spring 2020 is the launch target. But there will be a beta version going live any day now. In a smart move, SourceAudio will push well-known Christmas songs for the beta period. The seasonal content will accelerate the testing period as these Xmas licenses will appear in podcast episodes before the end of the year.
  • “Back In Black” was mentioned in passing a total of three times over the two panels. I’m wondering if there’s something in the works with AC/DC to publicize the song as a part of the launch.6This song doesn’t have a US-based writer or publisher so, if it does appear on the service, I wonder if the song’s relationship with ASCAP suffices?

I expect technical hiccups and continued grumbling about SoundExchange’s involvement in private industry. But I’m thrilled to see some clarity arriving in how music gets licensed in the rising rocket of the podcast market. The organizations promise monthly announcements and updates, so there’s more to reveal. Watch this space.

Visit www.podcastmusic.com/rights-holders to get involved as a podcaster or rights-holder.

An Interview With Sync-Club Podcast

by // Leave a Comment

Listen to “Rolling the Dice with Michael Donaldson | 001” on Spreaker.

Steven Cleveland — of the electronic band Ping Trace who I’ve worked with — has started a podcast titled Sync-Club. As I understand it, the podcast is Steven’s journey in better understanding the worlds of publishing, licensing, and synchronization with the listener along for the ride. The podcast will feature interviews with professionals working in synch as the knowledge gets dropped. It’s a great concept. The synch world could use some demystification from a learner’s point of view.

I’m honored to help launch this podcast by being the interviewee on the first episode. Steven and I have a fun and informative conversation. I go deep on a variety of licensing-related subjects, and towards the end, I reveal a few tactics for the best ways that an independent artist can reach out to music supervisors.

The podcast conversation is also like a taste of one of my consulting sessions. I cover similar ground with my label and artist clients. Interested? Send me a note.

One of my favorite riffs concerns how an artist should not overthink the synch market, falling into the trap of creating music that might be ‘great for licensing.’ Music your fans love will end up being the music that supervisors love, so don’t abandon both by writing music to some imagined spec. Here’s a transcription of this riff from the podcast, edited for clarity:

There is a market for creating music specifically with sync in mind, and that’s called library music. And if you want to make library music that’s fine if that’s your prerogative. But if you’re looking for something beyond that, then you still need to create the best music you can for your fans, your audience.

A music supervisor, a showrunner, or a director will want their project to be cool and distinctive. So they’re going to look for cool and distinctive music to match their perception of what the project should be. When you’re making music to spec or to what you think someone is going to want to hear, you’re not making distinctive music. It might sound cool, but it’s not going to be distinctive.

And another issue is I feel like the library music industry is in jeopardy because of AI music. Creating music to spec — for example, songs with glockenspiels and handclaps with the lyrics, “you can do it!” — is intentionally generic. But people make songs like these because they’re the kind of songs used in a lot of videos. It’s a race to the bottom, and nothing is going to be closer to the bottom and able to do spec better than a computer in two or three years.

I feel bad for people that are making a living in the library music industry because I think they’re the ones who are going to be hurt by this. But on the other hand, artists and bands with distinctive sounds and sticky stories — a story behind the band and who they are and what they’re about — are going to stand out in the synch world. Those kinds of bands may even see an increase in the money they’re making from synch as the field of distinctive, story-driven artists will actually narrow in a crowded marketplace.

You also have to think in terms of who music supervisors are when you’re pitching music. You have to put yourself in their shoes and understand where they come from. Music supervisors are music fans. That’s the reason they got into the profession. I was thinking earlier today about how a lot of newer executives in the record industry are tech people rather than music people. It’s almost like music supervision is the last area that’s entirely populated by music fans, and I don’t see that changing.

Your average music supervisor was in a band once, or they were a DJ on a college radio station or at a nightclub. They might have worked at a label or written about music professionally. When you realize that you better understand how to pitch your music. Music supervisors want to discover bands. They want to support a band that has a story that they connect with. And obviously, they also want a really good song that fits the project. But if you have a compelling story, then you have a greater chance of getting your song to them.

Check out Sync-Club’s website here, and be sure to subscribe to the podcast’s newsletter — and the podcast itself via your favorite listening platform — as I’m sure it will provide a wealth of useful information.

Micro-Licensing and the Act of Crossing Fingers

by // Leave a Comment

Micro-licensing sites — where you add your music to an online library portal and licensing rights are granted for a small fee — have an allure. For one thing, they’re convenient as you merely upload your songs and fill in some info. The only other step is to cross your fingers and hope your music takes off on the site. Micro-licensing sites promote royalty in scale — that if your music is successful, it won’t matter that the license fee is $15 (or whatever). Thousands of those will add up.

But it’s common knowledge that it’s a 1% of 1% that have such success on these sites. And I’d wager these successful composers work super-hard at it, doing quite a bit more than crossing fingers.

You also have to accept that, in most cases, you’re losing complete control of your work when you supply music to one of these content providers. You don’t know who’s licensing, and you certainly can’t deny a license, and you won’t be able to gauge or benefit from a commercial entity making loads of money off your work.

Stock photo sites operate the same. Which brings us to this story reported in Petapixel:

It turns out a Newfoundland-based company called Islandwide Distributors (IWD) had licensed [Michael] Stemm’s photo royalty-free from Shutterstock for just $1.88. The company then turned around and made at least 500,000 units of products with it [and sold the products in Walmart stores across Canada] — Stemm learned this number after reaching out to the company. So while Stemm’s experience may seem unfair, it was likely entirely lawful and within Islandwide’s rights.

The salt on the wound:

Unfortunately for Stemm, he isn’t even able to withdraw the $1.88 he earned, as his account needs to reach a balance of $50 before he can see the funds.

Techdirt has no sympathy for Stemm:

Stemm said Shutterstock could license the photo. Shutterstock did exactly that. The fact that Walmart has more than 500,000 items featuring Stemm’s photo is probably unexpected, but if you really want to retain full rights to your creation, you don’t hand part of those rights over to a middleman. When Walmart licensed the picture from Shutterstock, it didn’t seek Stemm’s permission because it didn’t need Stemm’s permission. […]

It certainly seems unfair when a company can make hundreds of dollars from a $1.88 license. But there’s nothing unfair about a process that involves a voluntary relinquishment of control. Shutterstock can certainly find a greater market for someone’s photos, but no one should go into this relationship believing it will result in newfound personal wealth.

I agree with Techdirt’s sentiment here — when you enter into an arrangement with a stock photo library, or a music library, or the record label that will own the rights to your songs, you need to accept what you’re getting into. Moving forward, any mistake is but a learning moment as you got yourself into the mess. According to Petapixel, even Stemm admits he didn’t read Shutterstock’s licensing terms before clicking ‘submit.’

That said, I do believe these sites could do a better job explaining what’s in store for content creators and to favor realistic expectations. The idea that an artist will make ‘easy money’ through a micro-licensing site supports a rare exception. The artist might have better luck buying lottery tickets. Just like the lottery, the allure is strong — I’ve certainly been tempted, by both these licensing libraries and the lottery. And it’s okay if you play — just understand the agreement that you’re entering, the potential outcomes, and how frustrating it is to be in Michael Stemm’s position.

Tom Waits and Imitation in Advertising

by // Leave a Comment

A couple of days ago I examined the “Blurred Lines” decision, potentially allowing lawsuits against artists who acknowledge and transmit their influences ‘too much.’ I find this precedent dangerous, but it also got me thinking about the line between influence and intentional mimicry. There are many examples of music made to sound just like another artist purely to capitalize on the identity or success of that artist. The advertising world can be especially naughty in this practice. Recently, Eminem won a case against a New Zealand agency that used an intentional copy of “Lose Yourself” in a political advert. Licensed from a music library (which is a whole other topic), the soundalike track was even titled “Eminem Esque.” There’s no question of the intention there.

Tom Waits has a particularly tough time with imitation. I suppose it’s the price to pay for being such a distinctive, one-of-a-kind figure. Today I Found Out just released a video on Waits’ battles with advertisers and, though I’ve followed the Fritolay fracas, there’s a bit in here I didn’t know. I didn’t realize Fritolay had the nerve to have the soundalike sing a Tom Waits song in the ad (I am assuming Waits had an approval clause in his contract that didn’t allow his label to license the original recording outright). And, even more curious, I didn’t know that, despite Waits’ high profile victory over Fritolay, agencies continued to mimic his voice in ads, creating a legal whack-a-mole for the frustrated singer.

I admit that I don’t understand Tom Waits’ lawsuit over his songs being used in a horse circus, as mentioned near the end of the video. A ’horse circus’ sounds like the most Tom Waits thing ever. There must be something more to that. A compulsory public performance license should allow any of his songs to play in the venue, right? My guess is it was more about how the show was promoted, with an implication of Waits’ endorsement or involvement, rather than the actual musical content.

I’m also thinking about artists that refuse to have their music used in advertising. It’s amusing to explain to younger songwriters that there was a time — not that long ago! — when it seemed the majority of artists wouldn’t allow their songs used in ads. Mindsets have certainly changed, and you’ll get no judgment from me as far where you might lean. But there is something admirable about Waits’ position, though he’s able to earn income from a revered catalog and multiple vocations. I know the Beastie Boys are advertising hold-outs, too (and have had their own headaches for holding this line). Who else is left? And except for that handful of idealistic punk rockers, are there any newer artists or not established (i.e., well-to-do) artists that are also non-starters with advertising music?

8D Projects: Eros – “Floating In The Clouds” In Video For ICARO Paragliders

by // Leave a Comment

ICARO Paragliders has used “Floating In The Clouds” by 8DSync artist Eros in their latest video, which was filmed among the wonderful scenery of Macedonia. The special way that the song has been edited to match the video – including a gusty breakdown just past the midsection – really makes this video come alive. Based here in Orlando, Eros is one of our busiest and most requested artists. Check out more of his available catalog on the 8DSync site.

8D Projects: JJ Bull – “121 Miles” In Video For Burton Snowboards

by // Leave a Comment

The emotional instrumental to JJ Bull’s “121 Miles” is used in this great Burton Snowboards video, licensed through 8DSync. Professional boarder Kelly Clark talks about her preferred boards and gear as Bull’s music sets a nostalgic-then-uplifting mood. JJ Bull is a folk-based artist from Scotland, and we love his distinctive and evocative style … be sure to check out more of his music on our 8DSync site.

8D Projects: Tom Appl’s “Badibidab” Licensed To Vallarta Adventures

by // Leave a Comment

Licensed through 8DSync, Tom Appl’s “Badibidab” is a deleriously upbeat earworm of a tune, and it makes a fine soundtrack for Vallarta Adventures’ new video advertisement showcasing the tourism company’s ‘beach hideaway’ at Las Caletas (once the private home of film director John Huston, as pointed out in the YouTube description). We’re loving how the music drives the video and gives some enhanced expression to the gorgeous imagery. You can check out more songs by Tom Appl on our 8DSync web site.