An Examination of the Songwriter & Music Publisher Relationship [PART 2]

[Editors Note: This is a guest blog written by Justin M. Jacobson, Esq. Read Part 1 of this series here. Justin is an entertainment and media attorney for The Jacobson Firm, P.C. in New York City. He also runs Label 55 and teaches music business at the Institute of Audio Research.]

We will now continue our examination of some of standard clauses contained in the music publishing company’s exclusive agreement with a songwriter.

Below is another clause included in a major publishing agreement.

ROYALTIES – Provided that Publisher has recouped any and all monies payable to Writer under this Agreement, Publisher shall pay to Writer the following royalties with respect to the exploitation of the Compositions: 

(a) Mechanical Income – fifty percent (50%) of Publisher’s Net Receipts derived from the license of the Compositions. 

(b) Synchronization Income – fifty percent (50%) of Publisher’s Net Receipts derived from the license of the Compositions for use in commercials and synchronized in audiovisual works. 

(c) Print Income – fifty percent (50%) of Publisher’s Net Receipts derived from the licensing of the right to print, publish or sell printed editions or other printed reproductions of the Compositions. 

As the paragraph heading states, the above language describes the royalty rate that the writer earns. It is important to note, similar to most agreements in the music industry; the music publisher must first recoup “any and all monies” already paid to the writer, such as advances or other costs or expenses incurred on behalf of the songwriter, prior to the songwriter earning any of the above listed royalties. This means that until the writer’s account is balanced, they will receive no additional funds from the publisher.

However, once the songwriter recoups the outstanding balance, they will begin to earn royalties based on the above listed percentages. For instance under the above language, the writer is entitled to fifty percent (50%) of the “mechanical income” (CDs, Downloads), fifty percent (50%) of the “synch income” (song used in motion picture or television show), and fifty percent (50%) of the print income (printed or digital sheet music).

The listed percentages are fairly standard and are applicable to most exclusive publishing deals. Nevertheless, it is prudent to at least attempt to negotiate for higher percentages or better provisions; ultimately, the publisher may not agree to any increase.

Writer warrants he is a writer member and publishing member in good standing of ASCAP, BMI or SESAC. In the event that Writer is in breach of Writer’s warranty of being a member in good standing of ASCAP, BMI or SESAC, Writer hereby warrants he will become a member in good standing of ASCAP, BMI or SESAC. 

In addition to the above listed clauses, most standard publishing deals require the songwriter to be a member in good standing with their respective country’s P.R.O. This is typically due to the publisher requiring the P.R.O.’s assistance in collecting the public performance royalties due for the licensing of compositions. If a writer is not in good standing or is not a member of a P.R.O. at all, it could potentially cause issues in the publisher receiving payments, which they want to avoid. The above language helps obviate the issue by requiring that the songwriter warrant they are in good standing with their P.R.O. and will stay as such.

OPTION TO PURCHASE – In the event that Writer desires to grant, sell, license or otherwise transfer any right, title or interest in or to any of the Compositions, for a period of thirty (30) days, Writer hereby agrees to negotiate in good faith exclusively with Publisher, and to exert best efforts to reach an agreement with Publisher for Publisher’s acquisition of such rights in and to the Compositions. In the event that Publisher and Writer fail to finalize the terms of such agreement by the end of the thirty (30) day period, then Writer shall thereafter be free to negotiate with any third party for the sale, license or other transfer of such rights, but only on terms and conditions that are no less favorable to Writer than those last offered by Publisher. Furthermore, if Writer receives an offer from a third-party at any time (the “Third Party Offer”) to purchase all or any portion of Writer’s interest in the Compositions, or any one of them, and Writer desires to sell such interest, Writer agrees to first offer in writing to sell such interest to Publisher (the “First Offer”).

The First Offer must specify all of the terms and conditions of the Third Party Offer. In the event Publisher does not agree to match the First Offer within fifteen (15) days after Publisher’s receipt thereof, then Writer will have the right to accept the Third Party Offer. However, any sale to such third party must be consummated upon terms no less favorable to Publisher as those contained in the First Offer. If such sale is not so consummated, Writer will not sell all or any portion of Writer’s interest in the Composition(s) or any one of them without again offering such interest to Publisher as provided hereinabove. 

One way a publishing company ensures that they can potentially retain rights to lucrative materials after the expiration of the agreement is through a right of first refusal or a “matching right.” As described above, a right of first refusal provides the publishing company with the option to purchase a composition and/or all of the compositions, if the writer is attempting to sell the rights to the material. This language provides the publisher with a proscribed time period (30 days) where the writer must present any third-party offer they receive for the material to the original publisher.

The publisher then has a specified time period (15 days) to either match the third-party offer or to pass. If the publisher matches the offer, then a deal will be finalized on those terms; however, if the publisher fails to match the third-party offer, the writer is free to enter into a new arrangement with the third-party on the same terms as those presented to the original publisher. The above specific language requires that the deal must be consummated no later than a specified period of time (15 days). If the deal with the third-party is not finalized by the end of this time period, the original publisher has an additional opportunity to purchase the composition(s) for the same terms as those offered by the third-party to the writer.

Since “publishing” money is one of the most lucrative and consistent streams of income in the music business and music publishers are the top facilitators of licensing in this space, it is prudent to fully understand how they function and the best way to approach them. Overall, most standard deals are negotiable and should be viewed as so.

This article is not intended as legal advice, as an attorney specializing in the field should be consulted. Some of the clauses have been condensed and/or edited for content purposes, so none of these clauses should be used verbatim nor do they act as any form of legal advice or counseling.

An Examination of the Songwriter & Music Publisher Relationship [PART 1]

[Editors Note: This is a guest blog written by Justin M. Jacobson, Esq. Justin is an entertainment and media attorney for The Jacobson Firm, P.C. in New York City. He also runs Label 55 and teaches music business at the Institute of Audio Research.]

 

UPDATE: Read Part 2 of this series here!

We will now examine the music publisher and its exclusive publishing agreement with a songwriter. In addition to the standard exclusive publishing agreement explored below, there are other types of related agreements a songwriter could potentially sign with a music publisher, including a co-publishing, sub-publishing or administration arrangement; however, these will not be explored in this article.

Music publishers, which include Sony/ATV Publishing, Universal Music Publishing and Warner Music Publishing, are companies that manage a songwriter’s rights in a track. This may be typically referred to as an “administration” right in the composition. This provides the publisher with the right to license the music to others as well as to collect payments from any third-party for their uses of the songwriter’s work. The publishing company also handles the “paperwork” associated with the composition, including registering the copyrights in the songs, indexing the track with the appropriate Performing Rights Organization, as well as accounting and distributing the collected funds. A publisher may also “shop” a songwriter’s tracks in order to obtain licensable placements for its signed talent. An individual responsible for this task is sometimes referred to as a “song plugger.”

In most instances, the songwriter and publishing company equally split all of the proverbial “publishing monies.” In reality, this means that fifty (50%) percent of the total amount earned is allotted for the “writer’s share” of the composition and the remaining fifty (50%) percent is allocated for the “publisher share” of the composition. Since a single track can have several co-writers, this means that several publishing companies and other individuals may also be entitled to a part of the “writer” or “publisher” share of the track. For instance, if a song has two co-writers, the “writer’s share” of the composition could be split equally with each writer receiving fifty (50%) percent of the entire track’s “writer” share.

The streams of income generally subject to an exclusive publishing agreement include mechanical royalties, public performance royalties, synchronization fees and print incomes. Mechanical royalties are paid for the use of a musical composition on CDs, vinyl, cassettes and as MP3 downloads. In the United States, the Harry Fox Agency is generally responsible for collecting and distributing mechanical royalties. Print Income is also subject to these agreements and applies to any funds earned from the sale of the printed musical work, such as in lyric and musical score folios, individual sheet music and when the same is displayed or sold as sheet music on the Internet.

Public performance royalties are also subject to a publishing agreement. This income is due when a musical composition is publicly performed, including when it is played on the radio, at a nightclub, a concert hall, or a stadium. These funds are collected by Performing Rights Organizations (P.R.O.). In the United States, the P.R.O.s are ASCAP, BMI and SESAC. A songwriter must become a member of a P.R.O. in order to receive their public performance royalties. Additionally, each country has their own P.R.O., so a foreign citizen should become a member of the organization in their country of citizenship.

Finally, synchronization income, referred to as “synch” monies, are subject to the same publishing deal. This income is paid when a composition is displayed with a visual image, such as in a motion picture, in a television program, in a music video or in a video game. There is income here that may also be collected by the owner’s respective P.R.O.

As is standard with most exclusive recording agreements, the deal is usually cross-collateralized with any other agreements between the same parties. Again, this means that any advance and any other funds expended on behalf of the writer, whether under a recording contract or a publishing contract, are recouped against any royalties earned from either agreement. If possible, it is prudent to limit or prevent the cross-collateralization of the agreements; however, most companies will not permit this.

In addition, some publishing companies attempt to cross-collateralize the royalties earned by one co-writer in a composition with that of any other co-writers of the same track. This permits the publisher to credit any royalties earned by any co-writer of a composition toward the outstanding royalty balance of any other co-writers of a song, even if they are not attributable to this particular co-written song. If it is cross-collateralized, the publisher is permitted to credit any royalties earned by any co-writer of a composition, even if they are not attributable to this particular co-written song, toward the outstanding royalty balance of any other co-writers of a song. It is prudent to ensure that each writer’s royalty account is not cross-collateralized with any other co-writers of a track by ensuring that only tracks written by one writer are credited toward that writer’s outstanding balance without permitting the cross-collateralization of accounts with any other co-writers.

Another point to be aware of is that an artist should try to ensure that if they are signed to both a recording and publishing agreement with the company; and, if the company wants to extend one of the deals, the other deal is also not automatically extended. This prevents the artist from being dropped from the label while still being signed to the publishing company.

One final matter that should be addressed in this arrangement is the songwriter’s creative control and approval for the uses of its compositions. In particular, a writer should try to include a limitation on the types of works that their composition can be licensed to or included in. For instance, a “kid friendly” pop star may not want their composition featured in a commercial that contains drug, alcohol or tobacco use, features sexual content, or violence. In addition, an artist should have a right to approve any changes to their finished music. This includes ensuring that any song or lyric alterations conform to the artist’s “mood” or “style” of music. For example, a publisher should not be able to take a dance track created by a dance artist and edit it so that it is now a heavy metal record.

We will now examine a few standard clauses included in an exclusive songwriter publishing agreement.

SERVICES – During the Term, Writer shall furnish to Publisher, Writer’s exclusive services as a songwriter and composer and shall deliver to Publisher, for exclusive exploitation hereunder, all of Writer’s interest in and to all of the Compositions. 

(a) New Compositions – Musical works that are written, composed, created, owned and/or acquired, during the Term, by Writer, alone or in collaboration with another or others (hereinafter referred to individually and collectively as “New Compositions”) 

(b) Old Compositions – Musical works that are written, composed, created, conceived, owned, controlled and/or acquired, in whole or in part, prior to the Term, by Writer, alone or in collaboration with another or others (hereinafter referred to individually and collectively as “Old Compositions”). The New Compositions and the Old Compositions are individually and collectively referred to as the “Compositions.” 

As described above, the publishing agreement usually signs the writer to an exclusive agreement for their publishing rights in all of their Compositions. This means that the agreement applies to any existing compositions that the writer has created and owns as well as any new material they create or acquire during the term of this agreement. It may be advisable to attempt to exclude certain existing tracks from the agreement in an effort to prevent the publisher from receiving income from those compositions. This is especially true, if those tracks are already under a prior exclusive publishing deal. This is not the easiest goal to achieve as most of the time; the artist is only receiving the publishing deal due to an interest in all of their existing material as well as any new material they create going forward.

GRANT OF RIGHTS

(a) Writer hereby irrevocably assigns and grants to Publisher and its successors, all rights and interests of every kind and nature in and to the results of Writer’s songwriting and composing services, including, the Compositions, the copyrights therein and any and all renewals and/or extensions thereof throughout the Territory, all for the full term of copyright protection and all extensions and renewals thereof throughout the Territory. 

(b) Administration – Publisher shall have the sole and exclusive right to administer one hundred percent (100%) of Publisher’s and Writer’s respective interests in and to the Compositions, whether now in existence or hereafter created, including the following: 

(i) To perform the Compositions publicly, by means of public or private performance, radio broadcasting, television, or any and all other means, whether now known or which may hereafter come into existence. 

(ii) To substitute a new title or titles for the Compositions, and to make any adaptation or translation of the Compositions, in whole or in part, and to add new music or lyrics to the music of any Composition. 

(iii) To make and to license others to make, master records, tapes, compact discs, and any other mechanical or other reproductions of the Compositions, including the right to synchronize the same with sound motion pictures, radio broadcast, television, tapes, compact discs and any and all other means or devices, whether now known or which may hereafter come into existence. 

(iv) To print, publish and sell, and to license others to print, publish and sell, sheet music, orchestrations, arrangements, including, without limitation, the inclusion of any or all of the Compositions in song folios, song books or lyric magazines. 

(v) To collect all monies earned during the Term with respect to the Compositions. 

The above language explores the various rights granted to the publisher by the songwriter in the agreement. The clause affords the publisher with the exclusive right to administer one hundred (100%) percent of the song’s publishing. Under this provision, the publisher has the right to license the work for inclusions on CDs, as MP3 downloads and as sheet music. They also have the right to collect all the monies earned on the contracted for compositions.

Additionally, the publisher has the right to license the work on the radio, on television, in motion pictures and by “. . . all other means or devices, whether now known or which may hereafter come into existence.” This language permits the publisher to apply its current publishing deal to any new technology or means of distributing music that may come into existence at a later date. Furthermore, the publisher is granted the right to translate into another language as well as adding new lyrics to any composition created by the songwriter.

In our next installment, we will continue our discussion on a music publisher’s exclusive publishing agreement with a songwriter.

This article is not intended as legal advice, as an attorney specializing in the field should be consulted. Some of the clauses have been condensed and/or edited for content purposes, so none of these clauses should be used verbatim nor do they act as any form of legal advice or counseling. 

September Industry Wrap-Up

Spotify Expands Video Features, Partners With Hulu


It’s rare that a month goes by without some sort of news around the music streaming platform Spotify’s latest ventures. Last month, we reported on Spotify extending a test to U.S. customers that added videos to their playlists, specifically within its wildly popular “Rap Caviar” playlist.

This past month, Spotify rolled the feature out globally. The expansion was highlight by an exclusively-shot video for pop star Sam Smith’s latest ‘Too Good At Goodbyes’ single. Included in 40 popular international playlists, this quick development one month from its initial testing shows that the company is feeling confident in the feature’s reception from fans. As MusicAlly points out, the expansion of this feature is notable as it highlights Spotify’s video strategy shifting towards playlists as opposed to original shows.

Speaking of original shows, Spotify has also expanded its marketing of premium subscriptions by partnering with another likeminded and innovative player in the media space, Hulu. The two industry disrupters have teamed up much to the delight of college students heading back to campus this semester by offering a bundled subscription package: just $4.99/month for Spotify Premium and Hulu’s on-demand streaming plan. Spotify already offers a $4.99 student special, but this bundling deal is sure to sweeten the offering for a lot of tempted college kids looking for entertainment on the cheap!

Between finding new ways to entice paying subscribers and expanding artist-friendly creative features that we’re seeing in their video strategy, all signs point to Spotify staying on course as an innovative leader in a space in which indie artists can earn more revenue. We already know that music videos continue to be a big part of artists’ marketing strategies, and this combined with college campuses being a breeding ground for new music fans gives artists all the more motivation to get creative in this space.

 

RIAA Reports Strong Growth in Music Industry Thanks to Streaming


The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) dropped it’s 2017 mid year music industry review in September, and it turns out everything is coming up streaming! Not a huge surprise to most, obviously, but the numbers are definitely encouraging overall.

Comprising 62% of U.S. industry revenue in 2017 so far, paid streaming is now the largest contributor to the industry, a slice of the pie once dominated by digital downloads. In fact in just two years, that number jumped up from 33% in 2015 – while digital downloads accounted for 22% less this year, down to 19% from 41% in 2015.

Another less surprising point from this report is Spotify and Apple Music remaining ahead of the pack in terms of paid subscribers; but it’s important to note that paid music subscriptions overall grew in the U.S. to 30.4 million – a 50% jump.

Music to investors in the space’s ears? Probably. But the big takeaway for TuneCore and the indie artist community we support: streaming continues to grow among music lovers, giving artists more and more opportunities to get their music heard and discovered on the platforms we distribute to.

 

Australia’s Music Market Emboldened by Indies


A joint report by Deloitte and AIR (Australian Independent Record Label Association) dropped this month, revealing that Australia’s independent labels account for 30% of the country’s $400 million music market.

Always known for some its legendary independent labels and innovative music, Australia ranks #6 in the world music market share. Streaming accounted for 55.9% of digital revenues in 2016, up almost 30% from 2014-15.

While some indie artists may overlook the continent’s power in terms of music discovery, we here at TuneCore are celebrating the figures in this report – because whether it was an indie label or directly through distributors like TuneCore, this shows an encouraging trend towards independent music’s popularity.
Additionally, it’s a helpful reminder that when you distribute your releases worldwide, territories you might not personally visit or tour in can be viable when it comes to revenue and building a fanbase. Read the whole report here.

An Updated Look at Neighboring Rights

[Editors Note: This is a guest blog written by Justin M. Jacobson, Esq. Justin is an entertainment and media attorney for The Jacobson Firm, P.C. in New York City. In 2012, we published an article titled “Neighboring Rights: What They Are & Why They Matter”This newest installment includes a current exploration of today’s neighboring rights, including which countries currently provide them and which don’t. It also explores recent United States’ legislation that has been discussed in an effort to extend “neighboring rights” to U.S. Citizens; as well as a discussion on the current financial impact these royalties have on the world-wide music business. It expands on the existing material while reinforcing the information it provides.]

 

Featured artists, session musicians and master sound recording owners, typically record labels, are entitled to an additional royalty stream that artists and sound recording owners within the United States are currently not receiving. This additional revenue stream is referred to as “neighboring rights” royalties. In recent years, this revenue stream has become a valuable source of additional income for non-U.S. citizen performers. It is reported that neighboring rights generates over $2 billion per year. 

It is well established within the music industry that there are two copyrights in music, the underlying musical composition (“PA”) and the sound recording (“SR”). The underlying musical composition is usually exploited by a music publishing company and songwriters. They receive public performance royalties from a Performing Rights Organization, such as ASCAP, BMI or SESAC in the U.S. The sound recording is typically owned by a record label, which receives their rights from the featured vocalist on the track.

“Neighboring rights” are monies distributed to musicians and master sound recording owners when a work is publicly broadcast or streamed. The concept of “neighboring rights” is derived from Copyright law and has been applied to many countries through the signing of the 1961 Rome Convention. The Rome Convention treaty was enacted to provide featured performers and session musicians with an additional revenue stream when their works are publicly performed.

To receive “neighboring rights” royalties, the Rome Convention treaty mandates that a featured performer, studio musician and master sound recording owner must be a permanent resident of one of the signatory countries. Some signatory countries include Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, Japan, Greece, France, Hungary, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain and Poland.

In Rome Convention signatory countries, neighboring rights collection societies, similar to United States’ ASCAP and BMI, collect and distribute “neighboring rights” royalties to their members. Since collection societies vary in different countries, a musician must register the individual master recordings with each collection society in all of the countries that their track is receiving airplay in to receive full payment.

For example, the performing rights organization that distributes neighboring rights royalties in the United Kingdom is PPL; in Germany, it is GVL; in Spain, it is AIE; and, in Canada, it is The Recording Artists’ Collecting Society (RACS), which is a division of The Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA).

As discussed earlier, the United States is not a signatory to the Rome Convention treaty. Since the U.S. is a non-signatory country, U.S. citizen musicians do not receive any neighboring rights royalties. This is due to a concept called “reciprocity,” which means that because the United States does not pay neighboring rights royalties to non-U.S. citizens, those countries refuse to pay neighboring rights royalties to U.S. citizens.

This has put U.S. musicians, especially those who are solely featured vocalists and studio session players, such as many of today’s pop stars, in a bind by limiting most of their income to only record (which have steadily declined) and touring sales.

There are various reasons why the U.S. did not become an initial signatory to the Rome Convention treaty. One suggested justification is that radio station lobbyists fear that terrestrial radio stations would then have to pay additional license fees, essentially doubling its current fees. This additional expense may could result in a severe strain on their already dwindling business. The broadcasters are a significant lobby. Others counter this argument by saying that radio stations are predominantly kept in business by the music they play and without the master sound recording copyright owners, featured artists, and session musicians’ creations, the radio station would have nothing to air.

Although American law does not currently recognize neighboring rights for a terrestrial broadcast such as traditional radio stations, the “Digital Performance Rights in Sound Recordings Act of 1995” was established in an attempt to compensate featured vocalists for the digital public performance of their work. This Act allows U.S. musicians and master rights owners to collect royalties on digital performances of their work through satellite radio and Internet platforms.

This includes royalties paid by music streaming platforms such as Pandora and Spotify as well as satellite and Internet radio stations, such as Sirius XM. These royalties are collected and distributed through the licensing organization, SoundExchange. While American musicians can now collect digital performance royalties with the passage of this act, they still cannot collect royalties on terrestrial broadcast platforms. This means that U.S. musicians, who are only featured vocalists, still only receive half of the potential revenue streams available to them that other non-American vocalists do.

As recently as 2017, legislation called the “Fair Play, Fair Pay Act” has been discussed before the U.S. Congress with the intention of remedying the issue of neighboring rights. However, to date, no progress has occurred and it seems that no immediate movement is on the horizon. The lack of this income stream has widespread effects on U.S. musician’s earnings. In fact, according to Niels Teves, Co-CEO of Fintage House, the inclusion of neighboring rights could potentially “double the size of [the U.S.] annual market,” an industry severely in need of a monetary infusion.

Neighboring Rights are untapped revenue streams for many featured musicians and master sound recording owners. Unfortunately, most of this revenue is left unclaimed due to a lack of reciprocity between signatory and non-signatory countries. In order to help accelerate the music business’ recovery, copyright owners should attempt to apply additional pressure on the U.S. Congress to enact the “Fair Play, Fair Pay Act” or some variation of it. This would hopefully give musicians and sound recording owners their due royalties and compensation guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

This article is not intended as legal or business advice, as an attorney or other professional specializing in the field should be consulted.

You Must Do These 5 Things Before Licensing Your Music

[Editors Note: This was written by Suzanne Paulinski and originally appeared on the Sonicbids Blog.]

 

You often read blogs about music licensing that touch upon the importance of what to include in your email pitch, how to find who to contact about a project, and even how to position your music for greater success in the world of licensing.

What often goes unsaid, however, are the small, yet important, details (known as micro-tasks) that make the difference between a migraine-inducing process and a money-generating one.

When submitting music for licensing, be prepared and treat each submission as if it’s already been chosen. Below are five things you can do to organize your files and data to not only lock down potential deals but also make the process of submitting your songs a breeze rather than a tornado.

1. Embed all tracks with complete metadata

Upon mastering your tracks, make sure each file is complete with the correct metadata, which includes the track’s credits, as anyone licensing your song(s) will need this for his or her records. It’s also helpful to have this metadata available in a text file should you need to include it in an email or on a required form.

Metadata is important for licensing so that licensees can get in touch with you, ensure they have everyone’s permission to use the song, and draw up the proper agreements. It includes:

  • the album title
  • the title of the track
  • the genre
  • the authors/composers
  • the year it was recorded
  • the sample rate
  • the duration of the track
  • relevant contact info (including your full name and email)

2. Copyright your music before you submit

Avoid submitting anything with an uncleared sample to ensure you don’t screw up a potential deal. It’s also important to realize no one will agree to license your original music if it is not properly copyrighted. Deals can often happen very quickly, and you don’t want to hold things up by waiting for the copyright office to review and file your application.

3. Create a master spreadsheet for all song metadata

With deals moving as quickly as they sometimes can, it’s important to have your entire catalog’s metadata available at your fingertips. It’s best to keep a spreadsheet with every song’s title, genre, copyright info including all author(s) contact information, and the copyright registration number(s) in one place should you need to reference any piece of information during the licensing process.

4. Visualize where you could hear your music

It’s helpful, especially if you have a significant number of songs in your arsenal, to have certain information available at a glance when preparing to submit to certain opportunities. Using that same master spreadsheet, include a column for “sounds like” to elaborate on the genre and notable instrumentation, as that will usually be what people will include in their requests (i.e., “sounds like Bruno Mars with significant horns”).

Additionally, having a column for “perfect for” with notes on the type of media for which you would consider the song an ideal match (i.e., horror film, car commercial, etc.) will allow you to quickly scan which songs might be right for a project.

5. Keep a master contact list of people to whom you’ve submitted

Much like the master list of song metadata, having a growing list of music supervisors or licensing agents you’ve reached out to is just as useful.

Creating columns for their contact info, the date you first reached out, the status on your follow ups, what songs you’ve sent, any feedback they’ve provided, as well as a fact or two about them and what they’re currently working on will help you track your progress, set reminders for future follow ups, and strengthen your relationships by being able to reference where you left off when you next reach out to them.

Always remember at the end of the day this is a business. Having this information organized and readily available will not only make the process of pitching your songs easier but also show anybody who chooses to work with you that you’re a true professional and ready to deliver whatever it is they may need, which is the best way to ensure future work and a sustainable career in the industry.

TuneCore Heads to SXSW 2017!

Another year, another journey to one of the largest music conferences in the world.

In the past couple of years, TuneCore has had the honor of getting involved with SXSW in a multitude of ways; from sponsoring day parties with cool brands and blogs, to boasting four days of showcases packed with both well-known and emerging TuneCore talent.

As a digital distributor that has helped so many artists that show up in Austin to play and network each year, we’re always excited to hang out, catch awesome live sets, and connect with and make ourselves available to artists who use TuneCore!

SXSW-Announces-Select-Speakers-and-Expanded-Access-for-All-Badge-Types-for-2017

This year, TuneCore will be camped out in the SXSW Artist Lounge from Wednesday, March 15th through Saturday, March 18th – each day from 11am-6pm. There, we’ll be mixing it up with artists who’ll be showcasing all week, giving away awesome stuff, and meeting with artists interested in open consultation on topics like music distribution, publishing administration, and social media management.

At night, you can find the TuneCore crew up and down 6th Street checking out showcases and sets all over Austin in an effort to support as many of our talented TuneCore Artists as possible! Make sure to say hello if you see us out there!

Additionally, several members of the TuneCore family will be making us proud at some exclusive panels and discussions aimed at helping artists further their careers in the music industry:

  • Chris Mooney, TuneCore’s Sr. Director of Artist Relations, will be sitting on the “Transforming Online Popularity to Offline Success” panel; featuring artist manager Adina Friedman, Back 40 Entertainment’s Geniveive Thompson, and TuneCore Artist Ron Pope. March 16th 12:30pm-1:30pm 
  • Amy Lombardi, TuneCore’s Director of Entertainment Relations, is heading up the “Creating For a Cause: Making Music for Action and Awareness” discussion; featuring Broadway Records’ Van Dean, SIMMS Foundation Heather Alden, and TuneCore Artist Chaka Mpeanaji (Riders Against the Storm). March 15th 3:30pm-4:30pm

Speaking of awesome educational panels that are sure to help shape indie artists’ career strategies, we also asked our talented Music Publishing Administration team to pick out a couple of suggested discussions to sit-in on:

March 15th

New Nashville: The Evolution of Music Publishing

Invested Development: We Do What Labels Don’t

Music Publishing Meet Up

March 16th

Compulsory License Today, Direct License Tomorrow?

Creative and Financial Aspects of Sampling

March 17th

The Song and Sound Recording Performance Right

March 18th

Developments in Music Publishing: Lemons Or Lemonade?


Heading down to SXSW 2017? Give us a shout in the comments! See you down there, artists.