Life is different at the top

A counterpoint to yesterday’s post by Philip supporting John Mackey’s argument (posted on Whitacre’s blog) that self-publishing is a better deal for composers.

The counter-argument is, that if a publisher can sell 1,000 copies and you get 10%, you’re better off than if you keep 100% of 12 copies sold through your website. The publishers have marketing departments, existing relationships with retailers, name recognition, and are supposedly experts in selling music. Of course it’s debatable how effective that is, but I get the impression that the only composers who are really successful at self-publishing are those who have achieved name recognition of their own, usually via conventional publishers. I’d say it’s pretty obvious that the economic situation is pretty different for Eric Whitacre (or even John Mackey) than it is for Joe Choral Composer.

Furthermore, being successful means doing a lot of work on the business side: promotion, maintaining a website, handling payments, doing paperwork for ASCAP and other organizations, contacting resellers, fulfilling orders, filing for a DBA [something which Mackey seems to have overlooked], watching for copyright violators, and generally running an independent business. You’re getting paid more for doing more work, which is fine, but wouldn’t you rather be composing?

As I’ve written before on this blog, finding music via composer self-publishing websites is very time-consuming and frustrating. Most of it is bad (at least publishers do a first pass on filtering the crap), many composers don’t know how to use their notation programs properly, and it takes forever. So putting your own self-publishing website would be, for most composers, a ticket to permanent obscurity. You get to keep 100% of your obscurity, for what that’s worth.

Finally, it’s pretty rare for composers to make enough to live on; most of them have day jobs as performers or teachers or whatever. Given that, which is more important: to optimize your income from composing, or maximize the number of people who get to enjoy your music? If going with a conventional publisher leads to more performances of your music, wouldn’t that be worth the lower income? Not every composer would answer that the same way.

Paul Carey says

February 13, 2011 at 1:09 am

Hi all,

Well we’ve been through all this territory a bunch of times. Allen, there are some nuances to this that people should know. Maybe I’ll try to make a 90/10 theme here, since Mackey brings up that usual revenue split:

Even though I am a fairly established choral composer now, about 90% of my submissions are rejected, and this by publishers I already have relationships with. I’m not crying over this, I’ve developed a thick skin- but what would you suggest composers in this situation do with this 90% of their output which the conventional publishers don’t want to print? Burn it in the fireplace? Or get it out there through new ways?

Let’s also look at it this way- the conventional publishers want to print that 10% of my output they deem as potentially profitable for their catalog, and if I agree and sign over copyright of the piece, they will take in 90% of the income from that 10% of my so-called accessible profit-making music. See any problem here?

There are many wonderful choirs and directors commissioning composers for choral music these days- bravo to them. But very few of these pieces ever get published conventionally. The usual problem the publishers harp on is if the piece has, in their timid opinion, too much divisi or is over 4 or 5 minutes in length. This means that virtually all commissioned pieces across the country (which directors and choirs have invested time and money toward), even with premieres where singers and audiences alike agree the piece is artistically satisfying,will not be published. These pieces die away unless some other choir happens across it via director word of mouth, the composer’s own advocacy, or through venues like Deborah Simpkin-King’s wonderful project at Schola Cantorum on Hudson. I doubt that we can even say that 10% of major choral commissions across the country are being published. What publisher cares enough to change this? If a single individual like Deborah cares about this, why can’t the publishers? I challenge the major publishers of US choral music to work together to set up a program by which major commissioned pieces which fall outside the usual dumbed down accessibility realm will still be archived, publicized in some manner, and made available for sale to the choral world. Hmm, might be a problem here- I doubt publishers even read ChoralNet on a regular basis.

Oh, by the way, that 90/10 often becomes 90/5/5. Let me explain– if a composer uses a modern copyrighted text, they usually will wind up splitting that meager 10 % in half to pay the text copyright holder. The publisher’s 90% never takes a hit, but the composer does. (there are a few exceptions to how this is handled). So now a composer who chooses to do business with publishers in the usual way is making a whopping 5% on their creation? Hmm…

What do most publishers do these days? They seem to have fallen into a “new releases” mania trap. Marketing or buzz generated by them is just for the current new releases. It’s sink or swim baby, and you’ve got six months to a year, in their mind, to have a success or failure. Is this what we want for our art? Regarding this, I have two pieces that immediately come to mind – pieces which one of my publishers still views as failures because of low initial sales, yet which have been nurtured recently to sales success beyond that new releases time frame only through my own efforts and the efforts of a network of wonderful conductors who believe in these particular pieces. The publisher has put no effort into growing this success. In fact, one of the most amazing failures of the usual publisher is the sheer lack of any marketing strategy for the “back catalog”- those pieces which are over one year old. What goes on with the back catalog is something virtually no publisher wants to talk about when wooing a new composer into their fold.

Honestly Allen, I feel like you just want composers these days to shut up, accept the old paradigm, and question nothing. Sorry, but many of us are going new directions, and honestly, we have growing support among a whole bunch of forward looking directors, both young and old!

Note: I currently do have a wonderful relationship with the Roger Dean Company which supports me in many positive ways.

Comments

Allen H Simon says

February 13, 2011 at 7:18 am

We absolutely need a new paradigm. I don't care for the current publishing system either. But John Mackey pretending that composers can turn 10% into 100% just by self-publishing isn't going to solve this on its own.

There's a composers' forum here on ChoralNet. Maybe if the composers get together they can work out a way for new composition to find their way into choir directors' hands while solving some of the quality control and website navigation issues I have complained about. ChoralNet might be able to be part of the solution. Maybe we can set up a choral-music store here on ChoralNet which would take only a small commission and allow for previews, user ratings, etc. Sort of a SheetMusicPlus for self-publishers.

Log in to Reply
Paul Carey says

February 13, 2011 at 1:09 am

Hi all,

Well we’ve been through all this territory a bunch of times. Allen, there are some nuances to this that people should know. Maybe I’ll try to make a 90/10 theme here, since Mackey brings up that usual revenue split:

Even though I am a fairly established choral composer now, about 90% of my submissions are rejected, and this by publishers I already have relationships with. I’m not crying over this, I’ve developed a thick skin- but what would you suggest composers in this situation do with this 90% of their output which the conventional publishers don’t want to print? Burn it in the fireplace? Or get it out there through new ways?

Let’s also look at it this way- the conventional publishers want to print that 10% of my output they deem as potentially profitable for their catalog, and if I agree and sign over copyright of the piece, they will take in 90% of the income from that 10% of my so-called accessible profit-making music. See any problem here?

There are many wonderful choirs and directors commissioning composers for choral music these days- bravo to them. But very few of these pieces ever get published conventionally. The usual problem the publishers harp on is if the piece has, in their timid opinion, too much divisi or is over 4 or 5 minutes in length. This means that virtually all commissioned pieces across the country (which directors and choirs have invested time and money toward), even with premieres where singers and audiences alike agree the piece is artistically satisfying,will not be published. These pieces die away unless some other choir happens across it via director word of mouth, the composer’s own advocacy, or through venues like Deborah Simpkin-King’s wonderful project at Schola Cantorum on Hudson. I doubt that we can even say that 10% of major choral commissions across the country are being published. What publisher cares enough to change this? If a single individual like Deborah cares about this, why can’t the publishers? I challenge the major publishers of US choral music to work together to set up a program by which major commissioned pieces which fall outside the usual dumbed down accessibility realm will still be archived, publicized in some manner, and made available for sale to the choral world. Hmm, might be a problem here- I doubt publishers even read ChoralNet on a regular basis.

Oh, by the way, that 90/10 often becomes 90/5/5. Let me explain– if a composer uses a modern copyrighted text, they usually will wind up splitting that meager 10 % in half to pay the text copyright holder. The publisher’s 90% never takes a hit, but the composer does. (there are a few exceptions to how this is handled). So now a composer who chooses to do business with publishers in the usual way is making a whopping 5% on their creation? Hmm…

What do most publishers do these days? They seem to have fallen into a “new releases” mania trap. Marketing or buzz generated by them is just for the current new releases. It’s sink or swim baby, and you’ve got six months to a year, in their mind, to have a success or failure. Is this what we want for our art? Regarding this, I have two pieces that immediately come to mind – pieces which one of my publishers still views as failures because of low initial sales, yet which have been nurtured recently to sales success beyond that new releases time frame only through my own efforts and the efforts of a network of wonderful conductors who believe in these particular pieces. The publisher has put no effort into growing this success. In fact, one of the most amazing failures of the usual publisher is the sheer lack of any marketing strategy for the “back catalog”- those pieces which are over one year old. What goes on with the back catalog is something virtually no publisher wants to talk about when wooing a new composer into their fold.

Honestly Allen, I feel like you just want composers these days to shut up, accept the old paradigm, and question nothing. Sorry, but many of us are going new directions, and honestly, we have growing support among a whole bunch of forward looking directors, both young and old!

Note: I currently do have a wonderful relationship with the Roger Dean Company which supports me in many positive ways.

Log in to Reply

Life is different at the top

Connect with us!

Recent Blogs

American Choral Directors Association

Reader Interactions

Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Footer

Connect with us!

Recent Blogs

American Choral Directors Association