Music Publishing Trends, Part Seven

In this series we've examined the old model of choral music publishing and also focused a lot on various  new and new-ish ventures in the choral music publishing business.

Part one examined traditional sheet music publication, including some fascinating videos on the laborious craft necessary to create music scores before the advent of music software

Part two was an in-depth exploration of both the artistic and financial issues today's composers face when they choose to publish through traditional companies.

Part three through five were guest blogs by some great folks creating companies which are blazing new, more composer-friendly, trails.

Part Three: Fahad Siadot (See-a-dot Music Publications)

Part Four: John Muehleisen, Karen P. Thomas, Reg Unterseher (Northwest Choral Publishers)

Part Five: Kurt Knecht (MusicSpoke)

Part Six featured Deborah Simpkin-King as guest blogger, sharing her amazing venture,
PROJECT: ENCORE



Today, let's trot on back to an issue I brought up in Part Two of this series (if you want to read that whole blog entry, click here):

Here is what I said:

Let's look at where each dollar of gross income goes from the sale of a typical music score. These 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 now, continuing, are my various thoughts:

Now as you recall I also have been pointing out the modern composer's significant role in score preparation, and the high visibility many composers now maintain. Composers should be rewarded for these things. Further, I have bemoaned that many publishers want quick, easy hits that may generate strong, money-making sales for one or two years. In other words, the old school model desires quick turnover of merchandise, yet most composers are trying to NOT compose throw-away music. I propose that publishers reward composers for creating music that sells well and amasses long term sales. Publishers could also help composers further their career and work together for mutual benefit. Thus, a further proposal- publishers would reward composers who have become identified as a quality "house brand" for that company.

So let's simply take that good ole 10% the composer's are usually given as a royalty and see if we can suggest bonuses the composers could and should be offered (and actually, publishers should first take the steps to license the right to sell music from composers, and STOP requiring that composers sell the copyright ownership to their creations).

Some bonus ideas:

an additional 5% royalty on each piece where the composer provides a professional electronic engraving of the score (requiring only very small tweaks by the publisher's staff). Publishers could easily provide the company score-layout template(s) to composers to work inside of- this is crazy easy to do (you might want to go back and read Part One of this series- the videos there are fascinating!).

an additional 5% royalty to a composer who is very visible promoting the music at conferences, publisher reading sessions, guest appearances as composer and /or conductor at large events, etc.

an additional 5% royalty which kicks in after a piece reaches 10,000 copies sold (or other figure the publisher decides to arrive at)

an additional 5% royalty for any composer who reaches 20 titles in the publisher's catalog



In other words, publishers would reward composers for writing quality music which sells well over the years, as well as rewarding composers for composer/publisher longevity/partnering over the years.

If we start at that paltry old 10%, and then add in all of the above, a composer, working in healthy partnership with a forward-looking publisher, could be rewarded at a rate as much as 30%. This seems high compared to 10%, but look at all the work required to kick in these bonuses. It's not a small task, but worth it for both the composer and the publisher- both parties would benefit.


This could also be added- for pieces sold directly to the public, without a retailer middleman, an additional 10% royalty on those particular sales.

If publishers started doing something along these lines, perhaps so many composers wouldn't be so quick to bolt and start self-publishing, start co-ops, and the like. Of course, I like the co-ops- I'm not saying they should go bye-bye.More and more co-ops re popping up all the time, with some great composers banding together to do so.  And of course, any of these various old or new models can work- I am just pointing out that the old model could be revised to become more realistic about how IT can survive in the face of all the new models out there.

What do you think? I'd like to hear feedback!

Let's also examine another reason composers choose to self-publish or start co-ops--it can be more than just the money. It can often simply be the fact that the composer maintains control over copyright, the actual piece, and promotion.

Example One:

ACDA's executive director Tim Sharp has published music with Hal Leonard and others. Yet he and musical partner Wes Ramsey especially chose to publish their very popular High Lonesome Mass by themselves. Tim tells me that it was about control of the product- they simply wanted to make all the decision themselves about the piece and how it got out into the world and not have someone else by given the power make those decisions. It appears to me that Tim and Wes have been really successful in this endeavour- they have had a lot of well-received performances of the piece all across the country. It's a great success story! Btw, if you would like to read my review of the piece you can click here.

And here is the FaceBook page for the piece: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Come-Away-to-the-Skies-A-High-Lonesome-Mass/470372723069696?ref=stream



Example Two:

A couple years ago Nancy Menk of the famous Saint Mary's College in Indiana commissioned me to compose or arrange some music for her women's choir annual holiday madrigal dinners. I wrote three of these for her and decided to just keep writing. The project grew to include 18 carols (some original, some arrangements) for women's voices. I made the conscious decision to control this collection of carols myself. Thus, I chose all the tunes, did all the composing, arranging without an editor looking over my shoulder, collaborated with a cover designer and printer and so on. The finished product has become very popular and sells very well. You can read a very positive review of the collection that was in the Choral Journal issue from August 2014 here.

Carols, distinctive arrangements for women's voices

My printing costs are quite low and I make a significant profit on the book and was even been able to scale down the original asking price of the book in order to make my customers happy. I sell the book myself through my website, Paypal, Createspace.com, amazon.com. I have one deal in place with the great folks at Musical Resources in Toledo, Ohio to sell the book there in the store or online, plus also handle any wholesale deals that come up. It is currently a featured item  on their website. I control everything about this book. It was a lot of work, but it was well-worth doing that way! And I should add, I had a bunch of great musical friends help edit it and cull out bad notations, etc- thanks to them all!!

So you see, when composers talk about publishing models of the past and the need to reinvent things, it isn't always just them griping about the usual old-school 10% royalty- there are other significant issues as well.

I hope you have enjoyed this series. Please share it with others and consider leaving a comment on any part of the series.

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 One of a MegaSeries!

Hi all! Recently I wrote a blogpost here and shared it on the ACDA FaceBook page. It was read by a whole lot of folks. It was a blog reporting that Iowa ACDA has created a Repertoire and Standards chair to increase Iowa conductors awareness of self-publishing composers (and perhaps small publishers?) who deviate from the old publishing model. Appointed to this new position is Connor Koppin and I shared the introduction Connor wrote to Iowa ACDA members.

I have decided to feature, in the next week or two, various composers who have created their own co-ops, shall we say, as well as small choral music publishers who have broken, in some way, with the business model that the longer established publishers have been using. I will try to start summarizing what that old model is/was and, if you read Connor's words from the link, or mine here, you will get an idea of what is going on. For many of you this isn't news, but for many it is.

Part One: the old model of choral music publishing (we'll stick to choral for now, not that other music types are much different) has been around a long time. But many aspects have changed drastically, yet composer/publisher contracts and agreements have barely changed at all. I will first note the biggest change that has occurred since about 1990, the invention of music engraving software (Finale, Sibelius plus others) which is now the method of choice for about 99% of composers and publishers.

In the good old days composers just composed (and maybe conducted). They took pencil or pen to manuscript paper and had at it. After scribbling a double bar at the end of a new piece their work was now done (let's assume we are talking about someone who has a reputation as a professional composer, perhaps in the 19th or 20th century, and we'll also exclude 1960's through 1980's avant-guarde composers who made their own printable scores using the ozalid process). From here the publisher took over the laborious task of creating a highly professional-looking score which musicians could easily read. The publisher would have to proof the scribbles of the composer (and I mean scribbles!) and then set about creating a layout, with EVERY ELEMENT then punched into a zinc metal plate, BACKWARDS for every page! Ponder that for a moment. Whether a simple little Schumann song, or a Dvorak string quartet, or Stravinsky's Rite of Spring- everything was HAND PUNCHED by extremely diligent craftsmen onto metal plates, which then were sent to the printing presses. Think of the enormous variety of elements within a musical score- each note, beam, slur marking, each hairpin dynamic, each fermata, etched into a metal plate by hand! I think the younger you are, the more you may be unaware of how printing music used to be accomplished before computer engraving software such as Finale or Sibelius.  What we have with Finale now would seem like absolute wizardry to people from the past. Here are two absolutely fascinating videos by the publishing house of G. Henle in Germany where you can see the process in action. The videos mention the time needed to create one page of fairly straightforward music- one video states three hours, and I believe the hour says 6-8 hours. Can you imagine how long it would take to produce heavily orchestrated conductor's score pages for something like the previously mentioned Rite of Spring?

Sidenote: where did the word score come from in regard to music publication and printing? Answer: from the process of scoring the metal with a five-pronged tool to create staves.

Before this first blog in the series become too long,  I'm going to direct you to more videos. These next videos are more recent processes which involve ink and paper, and lithography.  And at my next posting I will pick up the thread as we examine publishing past and present, and the changed/changing workload relationship between composers and publishers.

Ha- check out the rub-on (press-type) letters and symbols!

Here is a process which begins by utilizing an oversize score for ease of detail work which is then reduced by the camera.