nonexclusive beats?

dvyce

New member
Nonexclusive beats.

Who really wants them?

Do you hear the same exact beat being used on more than one big song?

What do you think they are worth?


A song is what defines an artists identity. No "real" artist will use the same backing music for a song on his album which has already been on someone elses album.

An artist and record company wants a song to be so distinctive that you know what it is from the first second you hear it on the radio... they do not want you to have to listen to half of the song before you figure out which of the 10 songs that use that same beat this one is.

What is a "nonexclusive" beat? a beat that is not "your own"... it is a "beat" that you very well may hear the next day on someone elses album.

Hmmmm... does that sound like something with a different name?


It is no different than a "sample CD"

A sample CD is full of beats that you license nonexclusively.

You can get 1000 "beats" on a sample CD for $30.

That means you are paying 3 cents per "beat" when you buy a sample CD.

That means that the going rate for a "nonexclusive" beat is around 3 cents.


People here complain about other producers here devaluing the worth of a "producers" product by charging low prices.

If you sell a "nonexclusive" beat for $1, that seems like a lot of money for something I can get for 3 cents off of a sample CD.


Nobody selling "exclusive" beats should be worried about someone selling "nonexclusive" beats. "Nonexclusive" is a totally different market. If you are trying to sell your "beats" with the intent of making it to a "real" album, you will have to be in an "exclusive" market.


If you want to be "valued" as a producer, you should not worry about what price other people are selling their "beats" for...

If you want to be "valued" as a producer, you should worry about making excellent music and conducting yourself in a professional manner.


Remember, the fancy fine dining restaurant that sells a steak for $85 does not care about the truckstop selling a steak (plus 2 side dishes) for $3.


...just something to think about ;)
 

Hosey

"Shoryuken!"
dvyce said:
If you want to be "valued" as a producer, you should worry about making excellent music and conducting yourself in a professional manner.

Cosign on the whole post, but this in particular is golden.
 

73*

Listening is Paramount
Word!

I personaly believe that those producers selling non-exclusive beats are just there to take advantage of young artist that are foolish enough to think that with 10 or 15 beats, a mic, they will become the next 50cent.

On a side note this line of thinking could easily be used to discredit the sampling of previously recorded matierial...
 

dvyce

New member
73* said:
Word!

I personaly believe that those producers selling non-exclusive beats are just there to take advantage of young artist that are foolish enough to think that with 10 or 15 beats, a mic, they will become the next 50cent.

On a side note this line of thinking could easily be used to discredit the sampling of previously recorded matierial...


It is very different from sampling existing records.

When you sample existing records, it is generally done intentionally to make reference to that record you are sampling from.

When you use a beat that you have "nonexclusive" rights to, or if you use a beat from a sample CD... you just have a plain old song that can easily be used by other people and which you have no real ownership or identity in.
 

R2B

New member
THANK YOU!!

What I still haven't figured out in this non-exclusivity - forgive my ignorance I'm an old school music maker, PRS member et al - is how credits and, in the unlikely event the track really takes off, the authors rights and royalties are sorted out.

To me 'selling a beat' unlicenced is like selling a lottery ticket that's valid 100 years...
 

dvyce

New member
R2B said:
THANK YOU!!

What I still haven't figured out in this non-exclusivity - forgive my ignorance I'm an old school music maker, PRS member et al - is how credits and, in the unlikely event the track really takes off, the authors rights and royalties are sorted out.


There is no reason it couldn't work exactly like an "exclusive" (i.e., normal) license... you get whatever writing credit and royalty you agree upon...

The only difference is that you can continue to license the same beat over and over again to different people.


(...but why anyone would actually want to license a track that has already been used up is beyond me.)
 

73*

Listening is Paramount
dvyce said:
...but why anyone would actually want to license a track that has already been used up is beyond me.


The only reason I could think of is for a mix tape.
 

R2B

New member
dvyce said:
(...but why anyone would actually want to license a track that has already been used up is beyond me.)
From an artistic - and 'vanity' - standpoint, agreed, makes no sense. The thing is, some beats are so bloody catchy they can be milked until the crowd knows them better than the originator. DJs over here call it 'rinsing out'. It's actually common with Jamaican dancehall stuff.
 

MadTiger3000

Natural Philospher
R2B said:
From an artistic - and 'vanity' - standpoint, agreed, makes no sense. The thing is, some beats are so bloody catchy they can be milked until the crowd knows them better than the originator. DJs over here call it 'rinsing out'. It's actually common with Jamaican dancehall stuff.

Riddims are different, man. Riddims are supposed to be reused to death.
 
Last edited:

dvyce

New member
R2B said:
From an artistic - and 'vanity' - standpoint, agreed, makes no sense. The thing is, some beats are so bloody catchy they can be milked until the crowd knows them better than the originator. DJs over here call it 'rinsing out'. It's actually common with Jamaican dancehall stuff.


What I am saying has nothing to do with the "artistic" or "vanity" part of it. It is purely from a marketing standpoint.

If a label is going to put money into an artist, they want that artist to have "original" distinctive recognizable songs.

They are not going to put hundreds of thousands of dollars into promoting and marketing an artist when a consumer can get the same stuff anywhere.


I am not talking about beats that sound similar (I am talking about the same recording used on multiple albums.)


I am not talking about mixtapes or tracks intended for the dancefloor.



I am talking about selling "real" tracks for "real" albums.
 

zionproductions

New member
dvyce said:
What I am saying has nothing to do with the "artistic" or "vanity" part of it. It is purely from a marketing standpoint.

If a label is going to put money into an artist, they want that artist to have "original" distinctive recognizable songs.

They are not going to put hundreds of thousands of dollars into promoting and marketing an artist when a consumer can get the same stuff anywhere.


I am not talking about beats that sound similar (I am talking about the same recording used on multiple albums.)


I am not talking about mixtapes or tracks intended for the dancefloor.



I am talking about selling "real" tracks for "real" albums.


I understand what you're saying, but there are instances when even "real" artists may choose to cover a song. Look at older music. Popular songs were re-corded with different artists, records cut and re-sold to the public. How is this possible? because the songwriter owned that song and can re-sell it and did. This doesn't necessarily dis-credit the artist. While I agree with your point, I still must play devil's advocate and say there are possible cases when the music resonates so deeply with said artist that he/her doesn't mind using recycled instrumentals. The public and record company won't necessarily balk at this idea because it already has something going for it, instant recognition (in the case of a popular song). A real artist will still bring his/her unique voice to it and hope it will be well-received...

Okay I'm done... and yes I know artists capable of re-making great songs are few and far between, but I'm saying...
 

dvyce

New member
zionproductions said:
I understand what you're saying


No, you actually don't understand what I am saying. :)




zionproductions said:
but there are instances when even "real" artists may choose to cover a song. Look at older music. Popular songs were re-corded with different artists, records cut and re-sold to the public. How is this possible? because the songwriter owned that song and can re-sell it and did. This doesn't necessarily dis-credit the artist. While I agree with your point, I still must play devil's advocate and say there are possible cases when the music resonates so deeply with said artist that he/her doesn't mind using recycled instrumentals. The public and record company won't necessarily balk at this idea because it already has something going for it, instant recognition (in the case of a popular song). A real artist will still bring his/her unique voice to it and hope it will be well-received...

Okay I'm done... and yes I know artists capable of re-making great songs are few and far between, but I'm 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.
 

bknot1

New member
dvcye ..real nice post fam..educate some people fam.. you need to post this in the Music/Industry section also
 

bobsmitt

New member
i believe shondrae sold the same beat to both Kelis (Bossy) and Young City/Chopper.

usually it's rare to see it done in the industry but if random dudes hit u up on myspace i'm not gonna sell them exclusive to a beat. i wanna milk that mutha****a!! lol. and it will be hard to realize that's happening. majors/big indies are another story but i'm not interested in giving a song to one guy exclusive for cheap when i can sell it to a bunch of guys.

sample cds aren't the same. i don't think there are that many $30 sample cds with 3000 GOOD beats. prolly just some lame crap.
 

dvyce

New member
bobsmitt said:
i believe shondrae sold the same beat to both Kelis (Bossy) and Young City/Chopper.

usually it's rare to see it done in the industry but if random dudes hit u up on myspace i'm not gonna sell them exclusive to a beat. i wanna milk that mutha****a!! lol. and it will be hard to realize that's happening. majors/big indies are another story but i'm not interested in giving a song to one guy exclusive for cheap when i can sell it to a bunch of guys.

sample cds aren't the same. i don't think there are that many $30 sample cds with 3000 GOOD beats. prolly just some lame crap.


1. I said 1000 beats... not 3000

2. if the sample CD's have "just some lame crap" then it will be no different than the lame crap so many people try to sell from their soundclick pages :)
 

johnnyluke

New member
It's kind of a double edged sword in a sense tough because if you sell a beat "non-exclusively" and you have, like ten artists jumpin on it, it's a testament to how good you are as producer. Sure it's gonna get played out, but an upcoming producer can use this kind of exposure to move into the world of "exclusive" beatmaking. I think it's a nescessary evil and something you just gotta except.

To use an analogy, look at some of the biggest actors in Hollywood, were they always making 10 million a picture? Hell no, they started out doing Inde films and C-list movies for table scraps! It's all about exposure man.
 

junebugz

New member
Some full time musicians and producers do not want to sell ANY exclusive beats and that is totally fair.

If the BEAT is SUPER hot, their is potentially MORE money to be made via Non Exclusive licenses.
 
Top