Music PublishingTrends, Part Six

Today I am really pleased to continue our series with a guest post by Deborah Simpkin-King writing about Project: Encore. If you haven't heard about this great initiative I hope you will read this post, visit the website and, please, share this with your friends in the choral world. If you are tired of just seeing the hundreds of vanilla offerings in the 3-4 minute octavo genre browser bin, here is a resource filled with awesome repertory delight: great texts and great music!

Here is today's guest blog:

Out of the Marvelous Musical Mayhem:  PROJECT : ENCORE™

~ universal portal for high-quality, post-premiere choral compositions ~

Through the series entitled “Music Publishing Trends,” Paul is providing a clear window on the marvelously vibrant (and sometimes overwhelming!) world of new music dissemination.  As a performer with deep-seated belief in the necessity for the prophetic voices of our composers, I resonate strongly with many of Paul’s perspectives, and identify these two very exciting streams of creativity that have emerged increasingly over the past 25 years:

• Mushrooming popularity of ‘doing new music,’ often even taking the forms of premieres, commissions, and composer competitions.  
• Emergence of a plethora of means of disseminating new music - including self-publishing through individual composer web sites, co-op publishing (see Part Four in this series), and innovative approaches to incorporated publishing (see Part Three re See-A-Dot) - all made possible by the advent of music software (see Parts One and Two).

At this point, most choral ensembles serious about their art make some serious nod in the direction of ‘new music.’  (This, of course, does not apply to those particularly brand-identifying with ‘early music,’ etc.)  Bringing new music into existence is becoming increasingly ‘the thing to do!’  -and this is very good!!

Deborah Simpkin-King

~ Our Next Challenge ~

With so many options, so many resources, so many places to turn for repertoire, how is a conductor who is motivated to find fresh material (even perhaps a new composer to commission) to sort through it all?  And how, for that matter, is a composer to make h/herself heard amongst the din?  Even thirty years ago, most conductors would have turned almost exclusively to traditional publishers, for material to perform; most composers, to a publisher to contract and promote.*

Some avowed repertoire geeks will actually take delight in plowing through mountains of scores!   (Convicted!)  -but even for those of us so predisposed, there is never enough time.  And perhaps some have more sanely balanced lives . . .  ; /  Information overload simply IS a modern-day reality.  So, in the midst of all of this . . .

How do we identify/evaluate today’s emerging Choral Canon?

When the next major Masterwork is written, how will we know?

The founding mission underlying PROJECT : ENCORE™ (P:E) is that of addressing these very issues, with the specific focus of spinning high-quality, post-premiere choral compositions into performances even after the ‘premiere cachet’ has been spent.  The historical genesis of P:E has recently been told in the See-A-Dot October Newsletter, so I’ll not repeat it here.  

Allow me to clarify what PROJECT : ENCORE is not:  It is not a publisher, though it includes some published works.  It is not a promoter of a specific style, voicing, length or difficulty level, and includes compositions across all such parameters.  It is not a competitor with publishers, co-ops, or self-publishing composers.**

P:E does not seek to become another co-op, or composer collective.

Rather, P:E works with ALL (co-ops, individuals, collectives, publishers)  

in the evaluation and dissemination of strong choral voices!

What makes P:E different from a collective?  Objective review.  There is no commitment to all the work of any composer or group of composers.  In fact, it has happened a number of times that a composer has some submissions accepted and some not!  All identifying names and indicia are redacted before the scores go to review.

Review process:  P:E compositions have been objectively (blindly) reviewed by our high-level team of reviewers, each of whom has a significant programming commitment to new music, each of whom is a highly noted conductor internationally.  The perspective from which P:E Reviewers are asked to evaluate each composition is one of expansiveness beyond their own performance needs and style preferences.  Each composition reviewed must be evaluated as ‘high quality’ and ‘worthy of repeat performances’ by at least two of three P:E reviewers for acceptance into the database.  

Submission process:  A composer may submit up to four scores per year, one per quarter.  Each score is sent to three of our reviewers.  At least two ‘thumbs up’ are necessary for acceptance.  The vetting is a significant one:  approximately 60% acceptance rate.  The entire process is quarter-annum, including public announcements of new acceptances.  Each composer has h/her own P:E page, where partial score (composer’s choice of how much) and full sound file, along with composer biography and contact information are presented.  Our job is to facilitate the connection, upon which, composer and conductor undertake purchase and acquisition independently.  We have no further role, and receive no fees from any parties.  (-though donations to help defray expenses are not turned away)

Who are these reviewers?  Our highly-valued, necessarily ‘unsung’ heroes remain anonymous for the same reason that I, the Director and Founder of P:E am not a reviewer, myself:  complete avoidance of both conflict of interest, and appearance of conflict of interest.  Enthusiastic composers often share their excitement in making a submission with me (which is such fun!!) - and it is never a problem, since I am not a reviewer.  Perhaps, someday, when we have 20 or 25 reviewers, we’ll think about making the list public.  Should that take place, you will recognize every one!  They truly are our heroes, contributing their time quarterly for no reason beyond their contribution to the the Choral Art.  Many more than I are in your debt, Dear Reviewers.  

~ Here to stay ~

PROJECT : ENCORE™ was given birth through the 501c3 organization of Schola Cantorum on Hudson, which continues to support its cost.  It is, however, in every other way, an independent entity.  Currently ongoing is the creation of a fully-functional ProjectEncore.org URL (currently in existence, but not with full function of the URL as housed within the Schola site).  ETA:  March of 2015.

From the start, P:E was established with longevity and credibility in mind.  Reviewers agree to Confidentiality.  Intellectual trademark was sought and granted.  Logo was created and copywritten.  We are here to stay, and believe the function of PROJECT : ENCORE is uniquely necessary in our wonderful world of expanding options, providing an artistic ‘good housekeeping seal of quality,’ as it were.  

~ And Beyond That . . . ~

It is exceedingly satisfying each time we see yet another P:E composition receive another performance!  We are five years old, and knowledge of the resource is spreading within the professional community increasingly.  Time to shout ‘Mission accomplished?’  

Well, . . .  There is always more, as the world is always changing and growing and deepening.  -and this is good!  It’s not just ‘encore’ performances, though it is that.  It’s about a mission that embraces the broad array of issues inherent in ever-expanding musical creativity and performance - issues such as performance rights (formerly handled through traditional publishers), promotion and legal sound file presentation (about which many well-intended performers are unaware; just look at YouTube!), etc.  A task force is assembling currently to brainstorm some of these issues.  We are here to stay, and seek to make a positive, and an expanding difference!

PROJECT : ENCORE™     

-and this is good!

Next submission deadline:  January 15

*My own view is that traditional publishers continue to play a valuable role.  To the extent that the business model may incur new levels of negotation, as suggested by Paul, who among us does not make style and quality associations with various catalogues such as ECS, Santa Barbara, Oxford, Earthsong, etc.  I continue to believe “it takes a village!”

** It is not ‘Deborah’s personal collection of favorite music’ - though I turn to P:E always when programming, and seldom do a concert without at least one P:E work!

Proudly Presenting These Excellent

PROJECT : ENCORE™ Composers

Adrienne Albert

Ivo Antognini

George Atwell

Eleanor Aversa

David Avshalomov

Greg Bartholomew

David Basden

David W. Batchelor

Ross C. Bernhardt

Abbie Betinis

Éna Brennan

Micaëla Larsen Brown

Jerry Casey

Patrick Castillo

Andrea Clearfield

Steve Cohen

Gilad Cohen

Catherine Dalton

Joy DeCoursey-Porter

Robert Denham

Giuseppe Di Bianco

John S. Dixon

Michael Djupstrom

Melissa Dunphy

Wayne Eastwood

Edward Eicker

Joseph Eidson

Matthew H. Fields

Joshua Fishbein

Alejandro Flórez

Rachel DeVore Fogarty

Howard Frazin

Alec Galambos

Aaron Gervais

Burton Goldstein

Jocelyn Hagen

David Hahn

Jason Heald

William Healy

Bill Heigen

Brian W. Holmes

Pertti Juho Jalava

Kyle T. Jones

Linda Kachelmeier

Michael Kaulkin

Ben Jisoo Kim

Jamie Klenetsky

Peter Knell

Anita Kupriss

Janet Lanier

Thomas Oboe Lee

Christopher M. Lee

Leonard Mark Lewis

Li Kai Han Jeremiah

David Lipten

James Ludwig

Eduardo Andrés Malachevsky

Jerome W. Malek

Norman Mathews

Andrew Robert McBirnie

Robinson McClellan

Donald McCullough

Daniel Mehdizadeh

Graham Meyer

Andrew Miller

Liam Moore

Bob Moore

Anthony Mosakowski

Polina Sergeevna Nazaykinskaya

Loretta K. Notareschi

Nicholas S. Omiccioli

Akmal Parwez

Donald Patriquin

Samuel Pellman

Allan Robert Petker

Malina Rauschenfels

Paul Reale

Richard Rice

Denice M. Rippentrop

Patrick Rooney

Joseph N. Rubinstein

Jake Runestad

Joshua Saulle

Steven Serpa

Judith Shatin

Karen Siegel

Glenn Simonelli

Sarinda Soponpong

Keane Southard

Adam Steele

Brandon Michael Stewart

Ingrid Stölzel

Hilary Tann

David Evan Thomas

Karen P. Thomas

Reginald Unterseher

Joelle Wallach

Barbara K. Wesby

Roger H. Wesby

Michał Ziółkowski

Mark Zuckerman

Music Publishing Trends, Part Three

Greetings from Chicago where it is a balmy 74 degrees- Hurray! My son has fallen in love with porcupines and he has a home-made porcupine costume for Halloween. Very furry and with home-made quills- it's awesome. Right now we are glad to see that it will only be 50 degrees Friday, otherwise he would melt inside that thing!

This would be my choice in porcupines!

In parts one and two of this gabfest I talked about the unfortunate disconnect between a lot of today's quality choral composers (young and old, new and established) and the large, older traditional publishers, especially in regard to contract structure and sharing of sales proceeds. I will get back to that later, but now for the main event: I am going to feature offerings especially prepared by new or
new-ish publishers who are doing things quite differently as well as offerings from some great composer cooperatives. I am also going to feature Deborah Simpkin-King's Project Encore, which needs more visibility in our choral community.

I hope you will enjoy what each of these guest bloggers have to say and that you will appreciate their effort to put something together for this series. And of course I hope you will visit their websites!

Today I am featuring See-a-Dot Music Publications. This publisher, operated by Fahad Siadat (get the company name now?), is just about a year old now and already has a great stable of gifted composers: Toby Twining, Jonathan David, Martha Sullivan, Robinson McClellan, and more. The website is crisp and clean. They offer quality scores in both printed and electronic version. I also like the fact that Fahad does want to grow composer's careers- remember I mentioned that issue earlier? But enough from me, here is an article Fahad wrote for you to read:

Creating Partnerships: Music Publishing in the 21st Century 

by Fahad Siadat

A few years back I was talking with my friend the composer Jonathan David about how much I loved his setting of Now Sleeps the Crimson Petal (which you must check out even though it’s published by Oxford and not by me). He mentioned the piece isn’t performed very often, and believes it’s a result of little promotion on the part of the publisher, an issue I’ve heard about from dozens of other composers. This turned into a discussion about publishing arrangements in general, how he gave up 100% of his copyright for the piece, and only receives 10% of sales for a score he basically promotes by himself. While he appreciates the boost having Oxford University Press on his resume offers, it begs the question of what part publishers play in the modern industry.

I recently wrote an article discussing how I believe publishers can still be an important resource for both composers and conductors if they are willing to adapt to the needs of the 21st century. The reason I started See-A-Dot Music Publishing was because I saw a need for a different kind of publisher, one who partners with an artist to help their career grow and provides a well curated resource of quality music to ensemble leaders.

It’s important to understand publishers don’t serve composers, we serve conductors. For us, it’s the unique relationships we build with clients which is the stand out feature of our organization. They know we are intimately familiar with each piece because we have an in-house ensemble to perform them, and conductors trust us to make recommendations for their groups because we take the time to learn about their ensembles and audiences. That trust is core to our business model. Conductors often send me their program themes to see if I have an appropriate piece in the catalog. I love these conversations and think they're the best part about being a publisher.

Fahad Siadat

Our relationship to composers is just as personal, but in a completely different way. Rather than a service relationship, we are investors in an artist’s career. I see the modern publisher’s role as similar to that of a record label. When I ‘sign’ an artist, I’m offering more than marketing and business infrastructure; part of our job is helping polish and develop a composer’s work and help prepare it for public consumption. Sometimes this is addressing complicated engraving issues (not uncommon for contemporary work), other times it’s editing pieces for content and form, which can develop into a mentor/composition instructor relationship with those in the early parts of their artistic careers.

Those are the intangible features that differentiate us the most, but there are some concrete aspects of how work differently as well. Transparency is a big value for us, so I’ve listed below highlights of the contracts we have with composers (including percentage splits) and how they reflect a spirit of partnership and mutual support that makes sense in the modern day music industry.

First, we split the Copyright of the piece 50/50 with our composers. This arrangement gives the composer a say in how their music is used and adapted, and it ensures a continued legacy of their work. As a publisher, maintaining the legacy of our composers is one of our most intimate responsibilities, and having a percentage of the copyright allows us to continue that work un-hindered.

We also include a Right of Reversion which allows the composer to get all the rights of their music back if it’s not selling. This is a key element of our business relationship and keeps us accountable for the promise we make to be untiring advocates of our artist’s music. As a composer myself, I wouldn’t want my music lost in a back catalog. This seemed to best way to address what has become a common issue.

Our contracts include a  Right of First Refusal which states that if a composer is interested in publishing a new work that we get first dibs. It doesn’t mean exclusivity! We have a period of time to say yes or no, and if we don’t want to publish the piece then they can take it anywhere they like. As I said, this is a partnership, one where we mutually invest in each other’s well being and future success.

Jonathan David's Stabat Mater 

How we divide Sales and Royalty Splits is a little better than the standard. Generally, we offer 10-20% for what we sell on behalf of the composer. The variation depends on how established the composer is and can grow as their career progresses. Any kind of licensing fee or passive royalty (mechanical, synchronization, performance, etc) is split 50/50.

Ultimately, our goal as a publisher is to help our composers build a strong reputation and gain wide exposure. A symptom of that goal is selling scores, but the end result is a growing career for our composers. Even in a tightly curated catalog like the one we maintain, not every piece is a success (though they all deserve to be!), but part of the publishing game consists of the most popular works ‘paying’ for those that don’t sell hundred of copies. This is how we are able to offer more opportunities to those composers just getting started.

Of course, no single contract meets everybody’s needs, and many composers are happy to deal with their own publishing, marketing, and self-promotion. For those who want to focus their time and energy on composing, however, the right publisher can be a good route to pursue. 

Fahad is the director of See-A-Dot Music Publishing, Inc., a company devoted to the advocacy of new choral works and emerging composers. He is a conductor with C4: The Choral Composer/Conductor Collective and of the Columbia University Glee Club, and voice faculty at the Peridance Institute. He works as a chorister and soloist in New York specializing in new music, particularly improvisation and the use of extended vocal techniques. As a composer, he focuses on music for the voice, but has written for theater, film, and classical ensembles such as the California EAR unit and the TOCCATA Symphony Orchestra. Learn more at www.fahadsiadat.com

--------------------------------------

Fahad Siadat

Director, See-A-Dot Music Publishing

Join our newsletter and receive free scores and recordings every month!

www.seeadot.com

 

Music Publishing Trends, Part Two

In my last post, we examined how the preparation for printing music has become so much easier and far less time-consuming with the advent of computer musical "engraving" software such as Finale and Sibelius. Let's continue with that theme and see how it plays out currently as far as composers and publishers are concerned:

Today almost every working composer or arranger creates their music in Finale, Sibelius, or a similar brand of electronic notation. In fact, many younger composers are writing their music right into their software, with perhaps only some sketches done at the piano with pencil and paper. I myself am going straight to Finale- I've become that comfortable starting right away into the program. I think it helps my ideas become more concise when I see them clearly on a "page", not that I won't heavily edit quite a lot as I go, and of course, later on when I really need to finalize things.



When a composer has strong Finale/Sibelius skills, her submission to a publisher will be pretty clean and clear. In fact, most of us composers working today are quite proud of our engraving skills. We turn out a great looking score almost all the time. What does this mean? It means that publishers are being presented candidates for publication which are already very close to being camera-ready! The laborious metal plates are a part of history and the publisher saves hundred of hours of labor. Between the disappearance of the plate method and the fact that composers are supplying camera-ready "manuscripts", publishers are now  saved oodles of time and hand labor. As an example, some of my traditional-world publishers have used my score straight up, although adjusting from my usual 8 1/2 by 11 down to their octavo size (by the way, most of us feel that octavo sizes should go the way of the dinosaur- we don't see any advantage to their use- if you can, let me know!). Years ago, Oxford would take my scores and reset every note- I was never sure why they bothered with that- their result looked almost exactly like what I had presented to them. Maybe it was some kind of British "I can do this better than an American" thing!

Now that I've exhausted the score preparation issue let's jump to the financial picture. Let's look at where each dollar of gross income goes from the sale of a typical music score. These are my guesstimates-they are approximate figures.

In traditional publishing:

$1.00 is broken down this way:

90 cents to the publisher
10 cents royalty to the composer, who must sign over copyright ownership of the music to the publisher

If a living poet's copyrighted text is used here is the breakdown:

90 cents to the publisher
5 cents to the composer, who must sign over copyright ownership of the music to the publisher

5 cents to the author, who will  not be asked to sign over any copyright ownership

Here is a rough idea of how that 90 cents on the dollar that the publisher takes breaks down:

30-40 cents reserved for discounting to retailers

20-30 cents "engraving" and printing

20 cents publicity

20 cents profit

Here are the aspects of the traditional business model which currently rub almost every composer/arranger I know the wrong way, and which causes almost every one of us to join a co-op, self-publish in some way, or for some talented composers, simply quit writing in frustration (believe me, I know some very fine people in that category).

1) Composers are handing publishers virtually camera-ready submissions. Why don't we get any financial credit for that? May I also add that publishers no longer have to do large print runs to keep costs down. With modern presses, there is no reason that anyone has to do a 2,000 copy run of anything and warehouse copies until they sell. This is another cost-saving area that publishers are benefiting from today. I think it's great, but please, dear publisher, don't tell me you have massive costs in warehousing hundreds of thousands of copies- it's just not true anymore).

2) Why do publishers present such hefty discounts to retailers? And when the publisher sells directly to the public (which is more and more the case because of the internet), why isn't the composer offered any cut of that large savings in publisher cost per score created and sold?

3) Publishers have fallen into the trap of hawking nothing but this year's new releases. Or they will hawk a new piece for about two years. If the piece doesn't sell in that period, it dies. I have actually been told by a publisher that they don't care what a piece does after two years. If they make money on it the first two years, then they are happy. That attitude really rubs composers the wrong way. Most of us are trying like the devil to write music that might endure, it's part of the classical music point of view we were raised on at the college level.

If the piece gets no support the composer can't regain control of the piece since he has signed away the copyright (although a few houses do have a right of reversal clauses- that's all I will sign these days). Additionally, composers today are very present  at music conferences. We are out there meeting conductors- we do a lot of the publicity wok ourselves. Sometimes I am amazed that we do so much for that for our traditionally published pieces when we are only receiving a 10% royalty.

 Composers have websites and blogs. We diligently answer questions e-mailed to us from conductors. We Skype for free with choirs all around the country. We spread word about our self-published music but also about the scores we have with traditional publishers.  We aren't the composers of yesteryear who were pretty much inaccessible to the public, who didn't make appearances at conferences, who were never much part of the selling and marketing of the music- the publisher was supposed to do all that. Composers' music was heard, but they themselves went quite unseen (with some obvious exceptions of course). Once again, Oxford comes to mind. When I first was published by them  there was a publicity arm in the NY City office dedicated solely to giving personal advice to conductors on new Oxford releases. They would suggest repertoire, especially the new repertoire, to conductors personally. They would publicize all this and even suggest concert programs to people. Oxford composers wee never asked to do any of that. It was part of the business model at Oxford carried out by their employees assigned that task. That disappeared completely when Oxford HQ in  England shuttered the US office. 

4) The copyright issue has become huge. Many of us just don't see why this has to be this way. Look at Eric Whitacre having the cojones to up and leave Walton overnight and strike out on his own. Look at the late Stephen Paulus starting his own company years ago.  Most composers question the need to permanently sign over the copyright of their creation.

5) Composers are frustrated by the nature of what most publishers are looking for. Their key word is accessibility- often this translates into "dumbed-down". Now don't get me wrong, I love accessible music- we need it and many of us try to write quality accessible pieces.We're not always trying to write mixed meter eight-part counterpoint in Icelandic!

 I have something I call the 10/90 90/10 syndrome. The typical mainstream publisher would like access to the top ten percent of a quality composer's work which can be deemed accessible (in a good way) and which will create the most sales. They then want to keep 90% of that music's sales and only pay the 10% royalty. It's an upside down world. Even more vexing is this: virtually none of our very best pieces, the ones we have spent the most time crafting, the ones with truly great texts, with challenging passages worthy of mastering by a choir, as well as our longer, often multi-movement works commissioned by the better choirs in the country are NEVER published by a mainstream publisher. Every accomplished composer I know has a thick file of these finer works. We don't even try anymore to get them published by a mainstream publisher- we know they will be rejected.  We struggle to get 2-3-4 performances a year across the country for them via word of mouth. I don't think there is a mainstream publisher today in the US who truly nurtures and markets a composer and helps them develop their composing career in the way this was done decades ago. It really is a sad state of affairs. The worst gobs of dumbed-down music create a terrible devastating loop. As younger conductors see poor music in the marketplace, they often buy these products especially for middle school and high school choirs, When those pieces sell, the publisher looks for similar dumbed-down pieces to fill the next year's new releases. The loop just keeps making things worse.

So there you have it- a tiny bit of a rant, I suppose (hey, I was trying to stay calm!). But these truly are the frustrations today's composers have about the situation between themselves and the traditional publishers. We truly care about conductors and singers and want to create quality music for the performers out there. The disconnect between composers and publishers today is large.  I wish it weren't so. And honestly, I do not blame anyone personally for this situation. I'm quite more mellow about it than I was five yeas ago, maybe because I believe that some of us are inventing new ways to do things. If a company wants to keep their old model, they are free to do so. Why should I tell them what to do? What I do hope is that more and more people will discuss this and look for solutions. We composers actually love the relationships we have right now with conductors and singers. I think there's a lot of Big Love going both directions. Back to solutions- I wish we could find one for all these wonderful pieces I mentioned earlier that get premiered and then lay unpublished, unknown, and so on. If  a traditional publisher could find a way to dedicate a portion of their catalog to some truly fine, multi-movement works by our best composers today that would a great thing. Maybe they could look at what Deborah Simpkin-King is doing with her Project Encore project. If Deborah can do this all on her own, why can't the industry notice what she is doing and pick up the ball bigtime on it?

http://www.scholaonhudson.org/project_encore

At this point I still publish a few things with mainstream publishers, but it's only because a specific series editor has personally asked me for a piece for their catalog. These are usually great people, I want to please them and I am thankful for them for asking for music. But everything else is sold on my website (which is really in need of updating, ugh).

COMING UP NEXT: Some proposed changes in the divvying up of that $1.00 gross income. And a preview of some of the ways composers have banded together as well as some of the ways small, new publishers are changing the rules. And starting next Monday, a succession of these trendsetters will be featured every few days. Hope you will keep reading!