Is music publishing a lucrative business as of 2014?
- Thread starter Big_O86
- Start date
SwagProductionz
@SlurRty on Twitter
i don't think so.. but it depends on what you call lucrative
deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup
Moderator
It's all about hustle. If you have a solid team getting your music in the right places, absolutely. More than likely more lucrative than ever because the competition is spread so thin. When a song breaks these days, it ends up EVERYWHERE. 1st thing that comes to mind is Iconipop "I Love It". I'm not sure where they were on Billboard, but that song was played on every TV show, any venue, it was everywhere!
Bloody Glove
Active member
Publishing is not about 2014, it's about owning your asset's so that you and your heirs can exploit and profit from your current music, in multiple venues, in 2015 and beyond.
And that goes for instrumentals as well correct?
Yes
deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup
Moderator
Absolutely goes for instrumentals.
Exactly!
Is that a real question? Lucrative meaning PROFITABLE in business!
Last edited:
fataltone
Holy Lamb Media & Ent.
licensing your music is where it's at
I'm doing all kinds of different instrumentals signing up with companies like Pumpaudio and even Soundcloud who licensing it out
SoundCloud Partners With Getty Images Music — Users Can ‘Sync’ License Tracks For Commercial Use
SoundCloud Partners With Getty Images Music — Users Can ‘Sync’ License Tracks For Commercial Use | TechCrunch
and many other companies and contacting Youtube channel owners who need original music
I'm doing all kinds of different instrumentals signing up with companies like Pumpaudio and even Soundcloud who licensing it out
SoundCloud Partners With Getty Images Music — Users Can ‘Sync’ License Tracks For Commercial Use
SoundCloud Partners With Getty Images Music — Users Can ‘Sync’ License Tracks For Commercial Use | TechCrunch
and many other companies and contacting Youtube channel owners who need original music
ProducerJC
IndieHost
What's the point of making music if it's never published, rather independently or otherwise? Someone should own the right to publish music, why not the person who's doing publishing?
seems there is some confusion regarding the term "publishing"...
"publishing" refer to the "composition" (as opposed to the "recording")
It is not about "publishing" a song in the same way as "publishing" a book means to print it up and have it is stores.
In the record industry, that would be "releasing" the song.
I am guessing the OP is asking about "licensing" which is what d4p is correctly talking about.
You don't "get your music published"... when you write a song, you have "publishing rights" in the composition. You can get a "publishing deal" where the "publishing company" tries to find ways to "exploit" or "garner uses of your song that can make money for you" such as finding an artist to record your song, get your song placed in a movie/show/commercial...
Then if your song gets placed and they want to use YOUR version of it, a whole other set of rights comes into play... your "master rights". These are the rights to your "recording".
"publishing" refer to the "composition" (as opposed to the "recording")
It is not about "publishing" a song in the same way as "publishing" a book means to print it up and have it is stores.
In the record industry, that would be "releasing" the song.
I am guessing the OP is asking about "licensing" which is what d4p is correctly talking about.
You don't "get your music published"... when you write a song, you have "publishing rights" in the composition. You can get a "publishing deal" where the "publishing company" tries to find ways to "exploit" or "garner uses of your song that can make money for you" such as finding an artist to record your song, get your song placed in a movie/show/commercial...
Then if your song gets placed and they want to use YOUR version of it, a whole other set of rights comes into play... your "master rights". These are the rights to your "recording".