The book "Ignore Everybody:  And 39 Other Keys to Creativity" is by Hugh McLeod, a successful cartoonist and for 10 years an advertising copywriter.  He is also CEO of Stormhoek USA, which markets South African wine in the US.  He is best known for development and use of a particular type of cartoon he calls the "cube genade."  (Link warning!: McLeod does not limit himself to the kind of polite language you would use in front of children, your mother, or in church. If you are easily offended by foul language, do not go there!!!)

 

Derek Sivers, the indie music entrepreneur who founded the highly successful CD Baby, writes about McLeod's book in his blog.

 

Philip Copeland wonders about  whether the choral music publishing world operates in the same manner as McLeod's description of the book publishing industry.

 

Speaking as both a publisher and composer/author, I would answer: "It depends."

 

The larger a publisher (or any business) becomes, the more likely that description will become true, simply as a consequence of sheer size, if you are not already one of their top sellers.

 

While anyone can self-publish, think of a publisher, in the more traditional sense, as a kind of aggregator.  Whether we are speaking of printed music, books, or CDs, it is much easier for an aggregator to sell an average of 1 copy each of 15,000 titles than it is for an artist to sell 15,000 copies of 1 title.

 

Bear in mind that important word average, because typically, especially in large catalogs, a small minority of titles will sell a lot while many titles will sell few or none, with a mixed bag  in-between leaning toward the "fewer" end of the scale.  And as the sheer size of catalog increases, the attention to value of an individual artist often decreases, as does the personal connection between an artist and the CEO of the aggregator company.  This distancing of relationship can be further aggragvated when many of the catalog items are public domain, or when the publisher's attention is almost exclusively upon the in-print aspects of publishing with a corporate culture of "selling ink on paper"  (focus more on music editions as tangible objects than their content).

 

Philip's observations about the resulting "new releases" and repertoire at reading sessions somewhat reflect this corporate culture which will often (but need not) be the result of growth and size: Product becomes a form of "artistic median average" in terms of what sticks when it hits the wall, with marketing departments fearing anyting which deviates from "safe" and "sure winners" of the known formula, resulting in not only "more of the same" but "more of the same which has already sold in known quantity" instead of the editorial department exploring fresh or even interesting repertoire.  It becomes then a game of numbers, and a game of numbers tends to become increasingly anonymous in terms of any creator or creative team.

 

Even when a publication starts out in a friendly "small publishing" environment, that small catalog can get bought out by a larger firm (something becoming more common) and the original spark of personal connection between creator and publisher lost in the process.  (I've not only seen it happen, I've experienced it--but fortunately, in my particular instance, I was fortunate to have wisely retained the copyright to the particular book in question, thus will release a revised second edition under my own imprint.)  What is more horrifying is when a work (or even merely extant copies, as in my case) are acquired by another publishing entity whose aesthetics (and perhaps even ethics) are at 180-degrees from the work's creator.

 

Publishing is, however, a continually-evolving thing.  If you don't like how the system of existing publishing avenues seems to work, then create your own and network people of common mind.  As Derek Sivers says in another of his blogged essays: If you're not happy with any of the existing players in "the industry," don't limit your options to what already exists. You can make a new venue, a new store, or anything else.

 

Mark Gresham

Lux Nova Press

 

Philip,

 

I think that this feeling exists with the large publishers because their business model has changed so much. Each of the big publishers, such as Hal Leonard, Alfred, Lorenz (and I'm not talking about the publishers they represent - just their own publishing arms) now have composers and arrangers on contract and retainer. They sign contracts guaranteeing their publishers a minimum number of titles. However, the bad side of these contracts is that the publishers guarantee that they will publish a certain number of the titles that are submitted.

 

I also think that part of the issue is the "club" that has formed amongst these staff composers. For more than one of the major publishers, the head of choral and vocal publishing is also one of their biggest composers/arrangers. The bulk of the new issues that came from one publisher were written by 6 different composers. This equates to somewhere around 10-20 titles per composer for this year. If you look at some of the smaller and choral specific publishers, you will get 15-20 new issue titles at a time, but representative of 10-12 different composers.

 

So - I both agree and disagree with your statement. I think that there are many great publishers that do the work for us, and only publish music worth performing. However, there are also many other publishers that are publishing whatever their composers send them because they are required to. This has caused fatigue in our industry around some of these publishers and distributors. One example - I work for a major sheet music retailer in Washington, DC that specializes in Choral and Vocal music. We do anywhere from 10-15 ACDA and MEA events a year. When we do one of our ACDA events, we are actually asked not to bring music from one of these publishers because choir directors from that area just are fatigued from seeing the same 5 names over and over again.Of course, we don't go through with removing these titles from our browsers, but we certainly see what goes from our new issue browsers to our old issue browsers and eventually to the recycling bin because we still have the same 5 browser copies 5 years later.

 

 

 

 

It comes down to the simple fact that, as the saying goes, There's no accounting for taste. As you suggest, publishers may simply be throwing noodles against the wall without any regard for quality. However, I suspect if Choral Director A buys what Choral Director B  considers sappy, poorly crafted and aesthetically vapid music, it represents a difference in taste. And if a difference in taste exists among directors, no doubt a difference in taste exists among publishers and editors. The fact that there is so much of the poor quality music at reading sessions indicates that whomever made the selections for the session (just as often directors as publishers) has a preference for music I don't share.

 

The marketplace is a strange thing. We get what there is a demand for. But it isn't as simple as demand. It is an interplay between demand, profitability, and composer/director/publisher taste.  Usually, we can identify composers and publishers whose catalogue reflects an aesthetic with which we consistently find satisfying. Apparently that same relationship exists between other directors and composers/publishers whose music I deem inferior.

 

I remember once coming out of an ACDA performance of a Mass by a renowned composer whose music I usually enjoy. I was absolutely astonished at what I thought a completely wrongheaded, incongruous wedding of genre and this composer's great skills. I was certain that anyone at the performance would share the view and pan the piece as a low moment in the composer's output. To my shock, I bumped into a colleague (highly skilled and well trained) exiting the same concert who turned to me and raved about the same piece being the highlight of the entire convention.

 

Again, there's no accounting for taste.

Oh yes....

As an aspiring songwriter, I hope that this is not the case.  I recently sent my first original work to be published to a "Big" publishing company.  All of my copyright issues are in order, but I hope that the case of me working very hard and the publishing company not giving its share of the work is not true. (Since 50 percent of the royalties go to the publisher).  I haven't heard back from them yet, but we will see and I will keep you posted on how I am treated.

Philip,

 

It's all about dollars and cents. It  costs a lots of money to publish and market a composer. Many bigger companies mainly want to work with writers that they know the music will sell well. In some cases this can lead to a bit of a formulaic style of writing or a similarity of writing from a composer.  I suppose the thinking from both parties is that a volume of sales on a score will lead to a reasonable royalty cheque for the composer.  Smaller publishers may be a source for works by lesser known but good and creative composers. Many of these can be found through on-line catalogues.

 

Maryanne Rumancik

This is the very reason we need to stay networked with one another through ChoralNet, ACDA, MENC and such.  As long as there are relatively objective means of assessing new music and "tried and true" material, the choral art can remain vibrant and refreshing to generations to come.  Otherwise, we're a dinosaur tap dancing to the latest tune ... extinction follows!

 

(But actually, I'm an optimist!)     All the best,  Tim Banks

I'm not a music publisher, but a choral musician who works for (and makes topic selections for) a business book publisher.  I can promise you, any publisher who manages to stay in business for more than a few years is not operating from a "publish anything and see what sticks" mentality. Those that do are out of business within a few years.

 

The companies with legs are either publishing what they are 75% sure their customers will buy, or, if they are publishing according to their personal tastes, they have spent years and hundreds of thousands of dollars developing a brand that certain customers will return to on the basis of reputation.  Either way, a potential author's material has to at least look like it will appeal to their market base or brand audience in order to be accepted.  And acceptance by the publisher doesn't guarantee that their audience will respond as they hope. 

 

Every season has its blockbusters (hopefully), solid performers, and duds.  In many publishing houses, every new title gets the same investment of editing and production and the same level of budget  invested in marketing effort and PR.   But that doesn't guarantee the same level of sales across all titles.  Unless the title and author have already amassed a great track record or high public visibility in training or performances to add to the promotional mix, every new season's publication is a crapshoot.  And the publisher hopes there are enough blockbusters and solid performers to overcome the cost of investing in the duds. 

 

We don't know until the end of the season, after all the money has been invested upfront in production and marketing, whether we made the absolute best decisions, or will end up with a warehouse full of inventory to write off as losses over the next several years.  All we have are sales histories, trend-watching, and the occasional sighting of the next rising star on which to base our decisions.  We can make an author's dream a reality if the author is producing what our market wants to buy.  But to imagine that every author or composer can become a rock star if the publisher just puts more promotional money and effort into them is unrealistic. 

 

Publishing--especially print publishing--is one of the lowest profit industries in the U.S., in spite of what things look like from the author/composer's viewpoint.  Point being, it's not that they don't care about each and every author/composer and title as an individual.   It's that they have to concentrate more on the composers and titles that will keep them afloat to publish another season.  And the number of publishing houses and imprints that are shutting down in the current economy is testament to that fragility.

 

And self-publishing, while it might not allow you the same level of market visibility, is more and more a viable option if you want a better feeling of control over your composition's future.  I recommend it to unsatisfied authors on a regular basis. 

 

Peter is right--it's all about the taste of the buyers.

 

 

Marla Patterson

 

 

Is there a forum set up somewhere for composers and arrangers that would like to collaborate on resolving these issues.

 

It seems that traditional publishing in general seems to be changing, and quickly. NPR had a discussion regarding this last week regarding traditional book publishing. There is also much discussion in changes in the way textbooks are and will be delivered. California has set the stage for a new way of thinking of educational materials by adopting some open source materials within the high schools.

 

I know that many have personal self publishing sites available. But, there probably is very little traction that occurs in these individual sites that isn't developed through name recognition, etc.

 

So, is music music publishing headed for a significant change - one where storage space and distribution is done electronically rather than in warehouses of music that might or might not sell? Wouldn't that also resolve the issue or music that becomes out of print?

 

I realize that this flies in the face of traditional publishing, but it is what is happening in the other markets. Are there others that sense this coming change? Should we as directors, composers and arrangers be more proactive in a collaborative effort regarding this change? If so, then how? 

Hello Class, today we will review the following equation

Choral music publishing model today in the US:

Safe text (bonus points for warm and fuzzy) + safe, pretty, clichéd music (< 4 minutes duration) + zero divisi + zero challenge = LOTSA SALES (or so the publishers hope).

The current mantra is "accessibilty", whatever that means (a big EASY button, I guess, which is pretty much the attitude of most Americans these days about eveyrthing- we sure like EASY!).

Oh by the way, a few composer friends and I (some fairly well established) have often had pieces in publisher limbo for 1-2-3 years, though I won't allow anyone to do that to me anymore. Pieces get thrown in piles and forgotten or lost (I actually had a major publisher I was working with admit they had literally lost my new submissions within their offices), accepted and then placed in a holding pattern, or even accepted and then later rejected ("oops sorry, composer"). I also once had a publisher mad at me for wasting the paper in their printer to print out a six minute piece I submitted electronically which I felt had an amazing text, and which had been premiered to great effect by an excellent university choir. I do not work with this publisher anymore.

The only hope is for more and more composers to write their best, highly creative music, both “accessible” and advanced, and distribure it electroncally-- and that's already picking up steam. Of course there may be plenty of godawful self-published music, but that's really not much different than what is being offered for sale by most of the publishers. Also, self-publishing is very quickly losing the stigma it had for decades, both in the music and book business.

After all this ranting I feel a need to compliment a quality choral music publisher who treats people very well at all times, and that is Roger Dean; Scott Foss is the editor there.

Paul Carey, www.paulcarey.net