nonexclusive beats?

All the artists that want to be an artist buy exclusive beats. All this bull**** that people want to sell the same beat over and over is stupid. lol I mean if my beat blows up I want that artist that bought it to be like yea this **** right here is mine not have 20 other dudes running around with it. Non exclusive beats are offered by (kids) that want to be a producer that use illegal software and virus infested PC's that have no clue about this. For the real producers we create exclusive original material that's unique and alot of time went into it making it sound professional not a loop with drums samples that took 5 minutes of our time.

:cheers:
 
Magnitude9Ent said:
All the artists that want to be an artist buy exclusive beats. All this bull**** that people want to sell the same beat over and over is stupid. lol I mean if my beat blows up I want that artist that bought it to be like yea this **** right here is mine not have 20 other dudes running around with it. Non exclusive beats are offered by (kids) that want to be a producer that use illegal software and virus infested PC's that have no clue about this. For the real producers we create exclusive original material that's unique and alot of time went into it making it sound professional not a loop with drums samples that took 5 minutes of our time.

:cheers:

i take offense to that statement.. some of the best hip hop songs of all time are loops wit drum samples..

nd non exclusive beats arent just offered by kids who use illegal software...

i guess uve never had an artist come in and take an unfinished beat then?.. cause i sure have.. had an artist spit ova a beat wit just a loop and some drums.. sold that **** non exclusive

nd then gave the finished beat to somebody else exclusive.. so wat r u talkin bout
 
Magnitude9Ent said:
All the artists that want to be an artist buy exclusive beats. All this bull**** that people want to sell the same beat over and over is stupid. lol I mean if my beat blows up I want that artist that bought it to be like yea this **** right here is mine not have 20 other dudes running around with it. Non exclusive beats are offered by (kids) that want to be a producer that use illegal software and virus infested PC's that have no clue about this. For the real producers we create exclusive original material that's unique and alot of time went into it making it sound professional not a loop with drums samples that took 5 minutes of our time.

:cheers:
YOUR NOT selling the BEAT over and over you are LICENSING the beat over and over again with a non exclusive LICENSE .........dugh!!!! That is what Big time Publishing company's do. They exploit their copyrights and collect income from doing it. That is SMART AS HELL.

Publishers get multiple income streams from one song and........that is SMART.

If you create the Character "Gambet" and a movie company wants to use your character in a movie you don't have to EXCLUSIVELY SELL the character, but LICENSE the character NON EXCLUSIVELY for use in the movie. You could allow other artist to make COMIC books with your character also NON EXCLUSIVELY. So you could get paid more ways using a Non Exclusive license........

This is done by professionals all the time.
You can sell a beat or song exclusively but it is CLEARLY not the only or best choice (concerning publishing income).

Tell me this….if you had a beat you knew was worth $50 would you sell it exclusively for $50 to one person only or non exclusively for $50 to 20 people ($1,000). Non exclusive is CLEARLY better (for most people) in that you have a made $1,000 instead of $50 and you can still license the beat to 20 other people and collect another $1,000 and so on. And you know that MANY underground artist (as a whole) searching for beats ARE NOT willing to spend much more than $50 for a beat.

You can do whatever the fu@k you want with your own music though. If you want to sell exclusively do it........but it is not the BEST or SMARTEST choice for everbody, even those who are full time in the business (such as myself).


 
Last edited by a moderator:
junebugz said:
YOUR NOT selling the BEAT over and over you are LICENSING the beat over and over again with a non exclusive LICENSE .........dugh!!!! That is what Big time Publishing company's do. They exploit their copyrights and collect income from doing it. That is SMART AS HELL.

Publishers get multiple income streams from one song and........that is SMART.

If you create the Character "Gambet" and a movie company wants to use your character in a movie you don't have to EXCLUSIVELY SELL the character, but LICENSE the character NON EXCLUSIVELY for use in the movie. You could allow other artist to make COMIC books with your character also NON EXCLUSIVELY. So you could get paid more ways using a Non Exclusive license........

This is done by professionals all the time.
You can sell a beat or song exclusively but it is CLEARLY not the only or best choice (concerning publishing income).

Tell me this….if you had a beat you knew was worth $50 would you sell it exclusively for $50 to one person only or non exclusively for $50 to 20 people ($1,000). Non exclusive is CLEARLY better (for most people) in that you have a made $1,000 instead of $50 and you can still license the beat to 20 other people and collect another $1,000 and so on.

You can do whatever the fu@k you want with your own music though. If you want to sell exclusively do it........but it is not the BEST or SMARTEST choice for everbody, even those who are full time in the business (such as myself).





No offense, but you are a bit confused regarding how these things work.

I will try to explain this to you.

Publishing companies: Yes they license the same song for multiple uses, but that does not relate to this situation. Publishing companies do not license original backing tracks for artists to put their own melodies and lyrics on. They license existing songs for use in films, TV, commercials and the like... they may also be involved in licensing samples for new works, but that is completely different for reasons that are both obvious and which have already beed discussed.
____________________



The cartoon character example: This is not a proper analogy either. If you have created a cartoon character and you have created a following for that character and built up some equity and value in that character, then you have opportunities to license the image of that character. For example, you have a cartoon character like "Micky Mouse". That character is already successful. Because of the success of "Micky Mouse" people want to license the character for use on t-shirts, lunchboxes, watches, movies, etc, etc. People want to license it because they know people want "Micky Mouse" merchandise. The character is always "Micky Mouse". The do not license "Micky mouse" for use in a movie as some other character.



Nobody is creating a random cartoon character and licensing it use as a bunch of random unrelated characters. You do not see the same visual cartoon character as a part of multiple cartoons as different characters. Let's use "Fred Flintstone" as an example (but pretend that "Fred Flintstone" was not a real cartoon character for this example.)

You do not have 10 unrelated cartoons with characters that look just like "Fred Flintstone" but are NOT "Fred Flintstone"... you will never see a cartoon and see a character who looks just like "Fred Flintstone" but it being a modern day superhero who fights crime in the big city.

"Fred Flintstone" is always "Fred Flintstone"

"Fred Flintstone" is not an actor who plays different characters...

"Fred Flintstone" IS the character.


Do you understand the difference?
____________________



relating this to music: The stage at which you begin issuing multiple licenses is not as a generic piece of music for multiple to sing their own songs over. People start issuing multiple licenses when the song has become popular and has become valuable as a particular artists song. At that point, people license the song for use in movies, commercials, TV, etc. Those licenses are generally non-exclusive, or exclusive for a defined period of time or for particular uses. But the artist generally is the only one using that backing track in their original piece of music. The artist has that music exclusively. The further licenses are based on that new song which used your backing track, and THAT is what people will be licensing. You, as the writer (or whatever you did on the track), will be paid accordingly if the song is licensed...
 
dvyce said:
... For example, you have a cartoon character like "Micky Mouse". That character is already successful. ...

I don't know if this is supposed to be as clever as it seems. I know Disney is murderous in their protection of their IP, are you misspelling "Mickey" so as to avoid infringement? :)

"Mickey Mouse hates children!"

Didn't some comment like that get someone sued years ago?

Just thought it was humorous, not meaning to rag you on the misspelling (Micky is a common spelling of that name anyway).
 
Hosey said:
I don't know if this is supposed to be as clever as it seems. I know Disney is murderous in their protection of their IP, are you misspelling "Mickey" so as to avoid infringement? :)

"Mickey Mouse hates children!"

Didn't some comment like that get someone sued years ago?

Just thought it was humorous, not meaning to rag you on the misspelling (Micky is a common spelling of that name anyway).



I am tempted to say that i did misspell it intentionally for the reason you described... but in reality, I simply misspelled it. :)


And, yeah... Disney is known for suing people who use their characters without consent.

I vaguely even remember some case we dealt with in law school about Disney suing a mother for painting Mickey Mouse on her childs bedroom wall, or something like that.
 
dvyce said:
No, you actually don't understand what I am saying. :)






This is not about "cover versions"...

Not in any way whatsoever.

(and, by the way, the songwriter does not re-sell it or have to give permission for an artist to cover a song... once a song is out there, anyone can do a cover of it and just pay a mechanical royalty... even if the songwriter hates the cover version, he can't say anything about it.)


There are plenty of great covers that have been done throughout the history of music. But that has absolutely zero to do with the topic at hand.



This is about selling a "beat" on a "nonexclusive" basis.

Meaning: a "producer" makes a "beat" and sells it as is to several different artists. Now, each of these artists have the same exact backing track for their individual songs with different lyrics and vocal melodies. So if any of those songs comes on the radio, it will take you 30 seconds to figure out what song you are listening to because you have to wait for the vocals finally start due to the fact that is the only part that varies from one song to the other.

Yeah...so I confused my point with a bad example and info (distracted at work when I posted)...The point is...using your example: for the first 30 sec of said song using said recycled beat, people are listeing to see if it is the version they like or are used to. Bingo as to why someone may want to re-use said beat. In a day when attention spans are ever shorter, it is a bit of an edge for an artist seeking that type of attention. While I think it is silly, I do see how it can be beneficial, especially for an up-and-coming artist seeking to capitalize off the popularity or sound of a particular producer.

So forgive me for a poor example and explanation, but hopefully my point is clear now.

As far as re-selling said song--you cannot just re-record someone else's music and only pay mechanical royalties...you need to check that yourself--I didn't word what I meant precisely so I stand corrected, but your facts aren't exact either.
 
zionproductions said:
Yeah...so I confused my point with a bad example and info (distracted at work when I posted)...The point is...using your example: for the first 30 sec of said song using said recycled beat, people are listeing to see if it is the version they like or are used to. Bingo as to why someone may want to re-use said beat. In a day when attention spans are ever shorter, it is a bit of an edge for an artist seeking that type of attention. While I think it is silly, I do see how it can be beneficial, especially for an up-and-coming artist seeking to capitalize off the popularity or sound of a particular producer.

So forgive me for a poor example and explanation, but hopefully my point is clear now.

Your point is clear.

You still do not get it, though.

I never said people would not want to use a popular beat from another song for his own song. You are completely missing the point.

Allow me to go back to my "Mickey Mouse" example...

Many people want to use the image of "Mickey Mouse" on their products (...obviously.) People like "Mickey Mouse" and the image sells products.

But the owner of the "Mickey Mouse" character does not want everyone using the "Mickey Mouse" image.

"Mickey Mouse" is Disney's identity. Disney has valuable ownership in the "Mickey Mouse" image.


Of course people want to associate themselves with this popular valuable recognizable commodity.

That is the same reason people sample music.

But, once again, your example shows you are not clear on what we are talking about here.

If you re-read my previous post, maybe you will gain a better understanding of this concept.




zionproductions said:
As far as re-selling said song--you cannot just re-record someone else's music and only pay mechanical royalties...you need to check that yourself--I didn't word what I meant precisely so I stand corrected, but your facts aren't exact either.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

(aside from the fact that we have not been talking about "cover versions" and "re-selling" has nothing to do with this)

The only thing you need to do a cover version of a song is to pay the statutory rate.

There is something in Copyright called a "compulsory license" which allows for this.

You can pay this statutory rate through the Harry Fox Agency or you can directly attempt to negotiate a reduced rate.


once the song has been on 1 album, anybody is free to do a cover version of it for their own album... you do not have to ask... you cannot be denied permission.

These are the facts.

You do not understand the facts, but that does not make them any less factual.
 
dvyce said:
No offense, but you are a bit confused regarding how these things work.

I will try to explain this to you.

Publishing companies: Yes they license the same song for multiple uses, but that does not relate to this situation. Publishing companies do not license original backing tracks for artists to put their own melodies and lyrics on. They license existing songs for use in films, TV, commercials and the like... they may also be involved in licensing samples for new works, but that is completely different for reasons that are both obvious and which have already beed discussed.
____________________



The cartoon character example: This is not a proper analogy either. If you have created a cartoon character and you have created a following for that character and built up some equity and value in that character, then you have opportunities to license the image of that character. For example, you have a cartoon character like "Micky Mouse". That character is already successful. Because of the success of "Micky Mouse" people want to license the character for use on t-shirts, lunchboxes, watches, movies, etc, etc. People want to license it because they know people want "Micky Mouse" merchandise. The character is always "Micky Mouse". The do not license "Micky mouse" for use in a movie as some other character.



Nobody is creating a random cartoon character and licensing it use as a bunch of random unrelated characters. You do not see the same visual cartoon character as a part of multiple cartoons as different characters. Let's use "Fred Flintstone" as an example (but pretend that "Fred Flintstone" was not a real cartoon character for this example.)

You do not have 10 unrelated cartoons with characters that look just like "Fred Flintstone" but are NOT "Fred Flintstone"... you will never see a cartoon and see a character who looks just like "Fred Flintstone" but it being a modern day superhero who fights crime in the big city.

"Fred Flintstone" is always "Fred Flintstone"

"Fred Flintstone" is not an actor who plays different characters...

"Fred Flintstone" IS the character.


Do you understand the difference?
____________________



relating this to music: The stage at which you begin issuing multiple licenses is not as a generic piece of music for multiple to sing their own songs over. People start issuing multiple licenses when the song has become popular and has become valuable as a particular artists song. At that point, people license the song for use in movies, commercials, TV, etc. Those licenses are generally non-exclusive, or exclusive for a defined period of time or for particular uses. But the artist generally is the only one using that backing track in their original piece of music. The artist has that music exclusively. The further licenses are based on that new song which used your backing track, and THAT is what people will be licensing. You, as the writer (or whatever you did on the track), will be paid accordingly if the song is licensed...


Thank you for clearing up the false information people keep spreading around here...

no serious artist independent or major is going to want a beat that has been used by another artist for a major/independent release.

Tell me this though dvyce isn't it possible to put a clause in the contract that states the artist may use a beat for a certain time period and after the time period if they haven't released the record you may re-sell the instrumental? Also I've seen several situations where the producer has bought back the rights to the track...

There are a couple producers I know of that have sold beats to nobodies for a really low price then sold the same beat to a major. The majors never heard the independents version and the ones that have really didn't care either...

More information would be greatly appreciated
 
KomplexBeats said:
Thank you for clearing up the false information people keep spreading around here...

no serious artist independent or major is going to want a beat that has been used by another artist for a major/independent release.

Tell me this though dvyce isn't it possible to put a clause in the contract that states the artist may use a beat for a certain time period and after the time period if they haven't released the record you may re-sell the instrumental? Also I've seen several situations where the producer has bought back the rights to the track...

Sure, I'll call it a "use it or loose it" clause (I just coined that term :) ... but I'm sure people must have called it by that name before.)

If they don't use it, they lose it.

If they do not put the song on their record... or if the record doesn't come out... or whatever-- then they lose the right to use the music...

...just put it in the contract.




KomplexBeats said:
There are a couple producers I know of that have sold beats to nobodies for a really low price then sold the same beat to a major. The majors never heard the independents version and the ones that have really didn't care either...

More information would be greatly appreciated

Like I said... you can do whatever the parties agree to.

In this case, the major probably didn't care since the "nobody" using the music was inconsequential in their eyes... like a tree falling in the woods with nobody there to hear it.
 
you can set a clause, even if the music is used, for a certain time limit of exclusivity and have it become non-exclusive. whether someone would agree or want that struck from the contract is the question.
 
7thangel said:
you can set a clause, even if the music is used, for a certain time limit of exclusivity and have it become non-exclusive. whether someone would agree or want that struck from the contract is the question.

Yes, you can put just about whatever you want in a contract... That has been discussed here to death.

The point here is that no real artist or label wants a track that is not exclusively their own.
 
Well....

I haven't posted on these forums in a long time, but as a very well known producer in my state, let me just say that the Majority of the artist in these cities cannot truly afford exclusive rights. I choose to make quality tracks, and allow them to buy non-exclusive rights. It helps my pockets, and it helps the artist by giving them the chance to rap over quality tracks without paying quality track prices. Honestly, most artist are broke, so they download instrumentals of their favorite ish and use it... Hell I'd rather them pay me a few $$$ and use mine... Its also a great way to get noticed in yor city as the man for beats when everyone in town is rappin to your tracks...

When I see T.I. or Luda, they can get some exclusive rights, but I gotta work my city... heres the deal tho...
When someone finally makes a hit from one of your tracks, you can start to name your price.

Just my 2 cents
Holla back
 
BigMagic, I couldn't agree with you more! I said basically the same thing in a previous post, it's just a nescessary evil and you just need to let it go! Sure everyone would love to make beats exclusively, but for a producer trying to get his foot in the door, you do what it takes! If some of these peeps spent half as much effort on their beat making abilty as they do on arguing their point, they'd be well on their way to exclusive beatmaking!
 
once again, the point is not that you should not license your tracks nonexclusively.

The points being made here are:

1. Once the music is licensed by more than one artist, "exclusivity" is no longer an option (for obvious reasons)

2. For a typical artist CD, they will need to be the only ones using that backing music. (this does not mean nobody will ever want to license a "beat" nonexclusively)

3. A "mixtape" is a very different from an "album"

4. While it may be in your best interest to sell the same music to as many people as possible, it is not in the artist's best interest to put a song on his album where other people have the same music on their albums. In an ideal situation, the artist will want to be the only one with that music.

5. A producer licensing "beats" to an artist for his album is very different from what a publishing company does with music in terms of licensing.
 
Yea BigMagic said some real stuff there, dvyce too... i agree with you both, but you know what, thats why I like mixtapes, I like to see what my favorite artists can do over ill beats.... I like Fabolous's version of Nigga Please better than jay z's version. but that was a mixtape... leasing beats is a good way to get recognition if you are just starting out, why not get artists who were going to download or buy an instrumental cd to buy your beat for a couple of 20 dollar bills. thats a great way to make some cash, won't be much off of one, but 2 things happen. 1 you can buy some groceries lol and 2 you are getting your name out there... if the beats are good, people who want exclusives will ask about getting exclusives... if i can lease beats all day for 50 bucks... why not... its not like those are the last beats i will ever make... and i am pretty sure that most producers have beats that they want to sell exclusive rights for and beats that they would just lease... the way i look at leasing beats for non exclusive rights is GETTING paid for advertisement. you get paid for the beat, and the person promotes that song, so dvyce i understand what you are saying, but that applies in the major label atmosphere more than the unsigned underground artist area. i am not saying that unsigned underground artists do not want exclusive beats, i am not saying that at all, all i am saying that there are different cases where leasing non-exclusive rights would be a good thing to do. how many times have you heard someone say (or said it yourself) "Damn I could rip that beat way better" that means that SOMEONE wants to do a song on nthat beat... ****it... let them try... if they do... then hey they get big and opens the door for them to do bigger and better things
 
Well said PIR, and Dvyce I'm not trying to be a dick or anything but do you even remember your original post? You keep reinstating the point your trying to make, and delving into the technicalities of what makes a beat exclusive, but you started this thread by saying, "Non-exclusive beats. Who really wants them?" You then stated that no "Real" artist would use the same backing music that another artist has already used.
 
Last edited:
johnnyluke said:
Well said PIR, and Dvyce I'm not trying to be a dick or anything but do you even remember your original post? You keep reinstating the point your trying to make, and delving into the technicalities of what makes a beat exclusive, but you started this thread by saying, "Non-exclusive beats. Who really wants them?" You then stated that no "Real" artist would use the same backing music that another artist has already used.


What "technicalities"? If more than one person uses the beat as the backing track for their song, then it is "nonexclusive."

...and where do you think I have said something contradictory to my original post?
 
Back
Top