Talk:Production music

This article seems to have become a place for every production music-manufacturing website out there to advertise on. Huge list of links. --69.157.30.115 (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is not a 'huge list of links'. This is a complete article with numerous links. As Jimmy says, "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge...". The information contained herein is a subset of that set which consists of "...the sum of all knowledge". Joe Hepperle (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

At the time when the comment was made, the article really was a huge link collection [1]. That problem has been solved, but this is one of these articles that requires keeping an eye on. Haakon (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh. Well then, in the inestimable words of Emily Litella, ...never mind. Joe Hepperle (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

This page does not cite any sources. Will someone tag it? 24.153.178.198 15:11, 12 April 2007

tagged for citation/sources Albineber 02:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Removed 'sources' tag. Article does have references, AND the proper method for information in the article that you "...do not believe..." is to place a {{fact}} tag. Drive-by tagging, leaving no comments for subsequent editors is discouraged. Joe Hepperle (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

The CNN article cited as a source is nowhere to be found, this article really needs more and better sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.101.12.63 (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

'Notable Musicians' deleted from article - in need of citation/verifiability Albineber 02:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC) :Reply

==Notable musicians for production music==

• Ralph Dollimore

• Laurie Johnson

When you tagged the article it did already cite sources, therefore your tagging is inappropriate. If you have further questions you ought to be more specific. Maikel 10:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

It is not accurate to say that most production music libraries own 100% of the rights to their music. In fact, the common model is for the publisher to take the publisher's portion of the copyright and the composer to retain the composer portion. This way, the library can sell the music and the composer is paid his/her share via Performance Rights Organizations performance distributions. I know this as a composer who works with several libraries in North America. I'm not exactly sure how to contribute to these pages...hope this works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.178.119 (talk) 07:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The article on royalty-free music seems to be about production music / library music, so I tagged it for a merge into this article. Is there a distinction I'm missing? —mjb (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

There's a big difference between production music and royalty free music in that production music is typically licensed in a rights managed manner while royalty free music is one price, use any way you like. Also, production music is typically licensed in a needle drop / one time payment for one time usage manner while royalty free music is licensed in a pay one time, use forever manner. Furthermore, material in royalty free music libraries is typically not registered with any Performing Rights Organizations and therefore no PRO broadcast license or performance royalties will ever be paid downstream as a result of the use of royalty free music and broadcasters using only royalty free music need not obtain a performance license from the PROs. There are hybrids to both models where some royalty free music libraries are not PRO-free, just one time, use over and over again and some production music libraries also offer blanket deals that allow multiple usage of material but still register tracks with the PROs and receive performance royalties. There are definitely not one in the same and merging the articles would not be the proper thing to do. One reason it's hard to nail down an accurate definition of royalty free music is because royalty free is a term borrowed from the photography industry which has no concept of performance royalties ever and therefore you can't apply the same definition of royalty free photos to royalty free music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.194.237 (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Support The details of differences in licensing can be explained in the one article, so long as they're sourced. The essential nature, generic music used in the production of film and television, remains the same. Subsequently, the details of how it's licensed is much less important to a general audience (which is who Wikipedia is written for) and, as the anon notes, there's really not a firm line as hybrid licenses are in existence and the concept is "hard to nail down". It's a splitting hairs difference that need not be reflected here. oknazevad (talk) 06:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please re-title this page: "Library music" thanks. --Boogiejuice (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

No. Please read WP:ENGVAR. Wikipedia has NO preference for any one variety of English, unless the article has specific strong national ties. As this article doesn't, either title is perfectly acceptable, and should no be change without compelling reason. No reason is given other that WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not good enough. Nor should the article be altered in any way to change the variety of English used in the body text. As such, I am reverting your edit again, and advise you not to repeat it. Thank you. oknazevad (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

--Boogiejuice (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Library Music is a British Invention = "unless the article has specific strong national ties" = you admit yourself you are totally incorrect lol!!! Please STOP using a foolish American term for a strongly British invention. What do you NOT understand here? You think the American term is the original correct term haha?! --Boogiejuice (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nonsense. There are no strong ties. Production music is the same regardless of where its from. WP:TIES is about things like referring to the Australian Department of Defence with that spelling. Anything else is arbitrarily chosen by the first major contributor, and then retained. If you really wan to make you're nonsense argument, I have two words for you: prove it. oknazevad (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

--Boogiejuice (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Rubbish. Read the article for proof. "Library Music" is a British invention and "Production Music" is an American term. The correct, proper and original name for this music genre is "Library Music".--Boogiejuice (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

The only "proof" in the article is your unsourced assertions, now reverted, and an uncorroborated primary source. Your tendentious editwarring is getting tiresome. Here's a counter argument: all 4 of the largest production music companies are based in the US. That seems a pretty strong national tie, doesn't it? oknazevad (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

--Boogiejuice (talk) 02:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)The proof in the article (do you understand English?) is stated that Library Music was invented by De Wolfe in England. The only stupid term you understand is a much later American piece of slang. It has no place in a history of British Library Music other than a brief note: "Library music is sometimes know as "production music" in the United States." Your utterly rubbish arguments are becoming very boring indeed.Boogiejuice (talk) 02:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Boogiejuice (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF "The first production music library was set up by De Wolfe Music in 1927 with the advent of sound in film." This article is written by an American i guess who does not understand the history of the music he's writing about haha. The sentence should read "The first music library was set up by Music De Wolfe in 1927 with the advent of sound in film." This one sentence is an example of what total garbage this article is........music name wrong, company name wrong, company formed date wrong...........having to talk to wiki pedants like Oknazevad is just a slight iritation. The real one is that idiots write such nonsense on wikipedia articles in the first place!!Boogiejuice (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

--Boogiejuice (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)De Wolfe Music is the originator of what has become known as library music as it was established in 1909 and began its recorded library in 1927 with the advent of 'Talkies'.[1] FROM THE DE WOLFE WEBSITE.--Boogiejuice (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Get a clue. You've now vandalized the article outright in your PoV-pushing nonsense, and still havent even signed one of your posts correct.y. Seems you lac competence to edit. Please cease. oknazevad (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I made a proposal, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musicians#Production_music_libraries, for renaming this article, before looking at this Talk page and discovering the heated debate from 2013 in the section immediately above this one. I would welcome any comments on my proposal. Thanks. Misha Wolf (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'll put the text of my proposal (and my subsequent amendment) here, which is what I should have done to start with! Misha Wolf (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to create a page called Production music libraries, redirecting to the existing page Production music. That page is full of mentions of "libraries" (23 matches) and "library" (28 matches), so such a redirect would seem to be helpful. Note that the page Music library refers to page Production music using the text "Production music libraries" (see Music library#Other uses). Any comments? Misha Wolf (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

On reflection, an even better option would be to move page Production music to Production music libraries, leaving Production music as a redirect to Production music libraries. After all, the page is about production music libraries. Misha Wolf (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply