nonexclusive beats?

[dvyce]

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.

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.

[7thangel]

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.

[dvyce]

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.

[KomplexBeats]

Preciate the advice dvyce just what i thought...

Peace

[BigMagic]

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

[johnnyluke]

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!

[dvyce]

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.

[PiR EmpirE]

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

[johnnyluke]

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.

[dvyce]

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?