Music Encoding Issues, March 1999
My friends,
Once again, I come to you for your opinion.
It seems to me we have TWO viable "creator" camps that
need to marry. The "computer" faction, who create
encoding, and the "music" faction, who create the art.
Forgive me if I offend, but any of you who believe that the
Internet is irrelevant in the future of music are sorely mistaken.
By the same token, those of you who think putting your music on
the Internet will make it competitive on a "broadcast"
level (today, literally), need to rethink.
I can only tell you where I am in my projects, and what my needs
are... but I do know, in reading the feedback on this issue, that
I AM FAR FROM ALONE in this position.
I have written and published for Film and Television (on a song
basis mostly, though I have scored a couple of segments) and have
been represented by a traditional PRO. I have received payments
for airings, though, considering the huge amount of material
broadcast worldwide, I am sure a few of my airings were missed.
Ok, at the time it was still better than no one to collect
anything for me. For the last few years, I have been watching and
waiting for the PRO's, Record Companies, and/or Broadcasters to
pick an encoding system. ("We are in communication with XYZ
about their system.") I need a decision. I am also running a
business, which, as in any other business with "inventory"
MUST be able to be tracked for it's use and profit.
A new frontier (and the only one left I know of, except perhaps
Space) has offered us input and output of immeasurable means. We
have today been offered a system for the Internet that will not
only encode the Author, Publisher, date of Copyright, etc., but
also a link to your website, provide all artist and liner notes,
extra room for extra credits, history, advertising, and existing
numbers or information to identify the work, OR ANYTHING ELSE THE
AUTHOR CHOOSES TO ADD. The Process and Numbering remain in the
Creator's hands. Not only is the system available to track one's
airings on the Net, but they are capable of giving a music "sample",
asking if the listener wants to buy it, taking their money,
allowing a total download and sale RIGHT THEN (music is an
impulse buy, after all), tracking any Internet usage of that by
the Downloader, etc.
NOW. The traditionalists are shaking their heads, saying this
doesn't address airplay. In my opinion, all it would take is for
the "computer" sector to (without that much effort)
hook up a couple systems to monitor broadcasts and pull the
encoding to show what was used, allowing the writer to file their
own cue sheet or play list with their PRO. I do not advocate the
replacement of PRO's, but I guarantee the automatic monitoring is
coming. The computer companies already have Internet monitoring
for encoding in place... it is only one more step to monitoring
outside the Internet, VIA the computer. And certainly will have
this in place as easily as the PRO's will have their monitoring
encoding inplace, and probably much faster and easier.
Oh, no! Now everyone is screaming. If somebody picks a non-PRO
sanction code NOW, it will be mishmoshed in ten years when all
the PROs and Broadcasters agree (oh, please.) I know hundreds of
publishing and sub-publishing deals that are mishmoshed because
of reassignments, etc., and it is a HUGE pain, but again, the
best we have for following the path. If one encoding emerges, I'm
sure we will be able to reassign, even if painfully, which system
a work ends up with, or perhaps easily have numbers cross-referenced
automatically.
Here are the FACTS that are relevant to me today. I have a
project that is unique, respectable in a traditional sense,
independent in that it is not Major Label supported, perfect in a
marketing aspect, that I am mastering in the next two weeks.
Because of the above mentioned nature, it is the perfect Internet
project. Because of what it is, it is possible that it is
something that usable by broadcasters a bit down the line. WHAT
IS IT THAT YOU THINK I SHOULD DO?? Wait?? Or go with what is
available that actually applies to my need TODAY?
One does not encode a master. You encode a master copy. What is
the conflict here? Unless the broadcaster downloads directly from
the Internet (not likely, at least in my case, they have always
wanted the dat or CD master in their hand), I still have the
capability to send them a CD with the encoding of their choice.
If they finally do make up their minds as to what they want, (give
me an honest date of when that might be, please) I am sure there
will be a "reassignment" availability if it means that
"they" still get to collect the royalties. What if
there is one master that produces credit on the Jriver code (Internet),
and one that does on the ARIS code (Broadcast) ... won't the
royalties be credited the same way, only from different sources?
Just because one says ARIS, and one says Jriver, the credit goes
to what is read, so if the receiver is the same person, song or
publisher, what is the difference? As long as one protects the
actual master, and anything you submit has a code, is there a
conflict? At least for me, and my small company, at this time, I
cannot see one. (Haven't master records been created by one
label, then sold to another? I this an unmanageable situation for
them? Once product is encoded, will that keep you from re-assigning
it to another publisher or label? I think not.)
Someone give me some answers, I have two weeks before I press,
and please, not just arguments AGAINST one or the other.) Give me
a path of action.
Janet Fisher
Goodnight Kiss Music (BMI)
Scene Stealer Music (ASCAP)
www.goodnightkiss.com