ISRC Vs Tunecore ID
#151
29th December 2012
Old 29th December 2012
  #151
Lives for gear
 
ksandvik's Avatar
 

Still a standard is better than lots of ad hoc standards. I would not mind seeing ISRC becoming the de facto one. Hence I mark my releases with ISRC for that day to happen.

What I don't want to see happening -- which is now the case -- is that every distributor and aggregator has their own ideas and it becomes a big mess long term.
Bob Olhsson
Verified Member
#152
29th December 2012
Old 29th December 2012
  #152
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Jeff, the ISRC system does get artists airplay money outside the United States and it also gets them money from satellite radio. It's also a means of tracking down the owner of a master for licensing.

No, you don't absolutely need it but it's still a damn good idea for artists to use it. Maybe having to pay for it didn't work for you after it was no longer free but that doesn't mean it is of no value to artists.
#153
29th December 2012
Old 29th December 2012
  #153
Lives for gear
 
drethe5th's Avatar
 

Radio uses ISRC.

Internet Radio & FM/AM.

Digital Download stores doesnt need to. Your file us assigned a number in thier catalouge.

You are Mr. Songbird and the track is "I Love To Sing.
Apple labels you as #13245768
Amazon labels it #89675432

Only radio needs a standard number (isrc) because

1) your not stored in an exclusive catalouge owned by them

2) Each station/public music venue is responsible to PROs for payment for spins, so the 1,000 stations out there need a central way to track, report & pay.

3) digital stores dont need it because they label your track for thier catalouge. They only pay when a tack is sold, and use invoices to handle the transactions.

In short,
Digital stores give reciepts and invoice
Radio doesnt and therefore needs ISRC.

Posted via mobile device.
Quote
1
Greg Reierson
Verified Member
#154
29th December 2012
Old 29th December 2012
  #154
Lives for gear
 
Greg Reierson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
If all of that is true, why does TuneCore offer its own ISRC? If it's useless, why bother at all?
#155
29th December 2012
Old 29th December 2012
  #155
Gear interested
 

There has been a lot of question about the Tunecore ID and how it is not good for the overall system
#156
29th December 2012
Old 29th December 2012
  #156
Founder, CEO, President - Tunecore
 
Jeff Price's Avatar
 

@ksandvik

How can it be a standard if its not used by any digital music distributor, PRO, SoundExchange or publisher to track music sales?

But lets go back to the concept, you would like IFPI - parent organization to the RIAA and Music Canada, organizations that have been traditionally hostile to artists - to be in charge of creating a central database that issues ID tracking numbers to every artist in the world?

Well, the database part is not a bad idea, but I do not want IFPI in charge of it in any manner.

As a point in case, if the ISRC system works, how is it that signed artists have to audit labels to get accurate accounting information?

The answer, because no third party entity on the planet uses ISRCs to track sales.

The ISRC system clearly does not work. It needs to be replaced. And those that adhere to it are perpetuating a flawed system that works against the goal, not for it.

Jeff
#157
29th December 2012
Old 29th December 2012
  #157
Founder, CEO, President - Tunecore
 
Jeff Price's Avatar
 

@Greg Reierson

Each digital music service uses its own unique identifier for the master recording. Apple uses its own, Spotify uses its own, Rhapsody uses its own, etc etc etc

Even EMI uses its own, they do not use ISRCs internally.

The point is, TuneCore uses its own as well as this unique ID allows an entity like TuneCore to tie the recording back to the customer.

As an example, you personally issue you own sequence to a song called "Hi There". You then get back 20 different spreadsheets from 20 different digital stores, each assigning the song Hi There a different number. You tie all this info back to a unique ID that you create to allow for easy accounting.

Jeff
#158
29th December 2012
Old 29th December 2012
  #158
Founder, CEO, President - Tunecore
 
Jeff Price's Avatar
 

@digitalmusicview

And yet, TuneCore's artists have all been paid whereas all those legacy artists signed to labels have not gotten accurate accounting nor been paid.

Seems to me, TuneCore solved a problem.

If you want to use ISRCs use them, no one is saying you should not. But be aware, they are not required nor used by any third party digital service to track sales. Also be aware, the organization trying to control the issuance of song identifiers in hopes of tracking sales are organizations that have been hostile to artists. Finally, be aware, you are paying a fee of $75 for a product that is not needed, but you are not being given the information to allow you to decide if it makes sense to pay a fee for a product that does not work, is not required and has never been used in the way it has been described.

jeff
#159
29th December 2012
Old 29th December 2012
  #159
Founder, CEO, President - Tunecore
 
Jeff Price's Avatar
 

@drethe5th

Regarding radio. What you state is not accurate.

That is BDS etc rely on digital fingerprints to track, not ISRCs.

In addition, SoundExchange does not use ISRCs to track or payout

PROs do NOT use ISRCs to track info. The ISRC is for the RECORDING of the song. PROs represent songwriters/publishers for the COMPOSITION (lyrics and melody). The ISRC does not link back to the songwriter/publisher. There is something called an ISWC that the PROs use, not ISRCs. But even with the ISWC, they still rely on their own technology to track radio play. For example, BMI owns the Shazam technology and they use digital fingerprinting to track airplay, not ISRCs.


Jeff
#160
29th December 2012
Old 29th December 2012
  #160
Founder, CEO, President - Tunecore
 
Jeff Price's Avatar
 

@Bob Olhsson

Can you please provide a concrete example of a third party only using the ISRC system to pay an artist. I have not found one in the digital world

Also, can you please provide me how an ISRC provides a way for someone to track down a master owner.

That is, show me where the music supervisor goes to look up a song in a database and the database gives results showing the entity that controls the recording based solely on the ISRC

Further, if i can go to a database to look for this info, I am typing in the song name/artist name,not an ISRC, therefore it once again is not needed

jeff
#161
29th December 2012
Old 29th December 2012
  #161
Founder, CEO, President - Tunecore
 
Jeff Price's Avatar
 

let me make one other point

Do you really believe Universal will rely on an unassociated third party organization it does not own or control to provide sales info to them from the digital stores as opposed to getting the information directly from the source (i.e. Apple)

Further, if the ISRC works, then why did the majors get audit clauses with the digital music services?

Even the major labels do not use ISRC to track sales - they have a direct one to one pipeline with the digital service exploiting their masters and even with these direct pipelines, they add audit clauses and restrictions on how masters can be re-associated with new labels.

So clearly they do not work and are not used.

then there is the second topic... you want these organizations to be in charge of issuing tacking ID numbers for masters to artists?

Look what happened when I pointed out they were not needed, the RIAA threatened to sue TuneCore (I posted TuneCore's litigator's response to the RIAA here in GearSlutz) and a representative of the ISRC organization began to publicly attack me personally suggesting i lived in a world of "black helicopters".

At least I had the resources to deal with it.

What about an artist that does not...?

jeff
Table Of Tone
Verified Member
#162
29th December 2012
Old 29th December 2012
  #162
Lives for gear
 
Table Of Tone's Avatar
 

Verified Member
So what you are saying is that major labels are using Tunecore instead of ISRC's to track digital release sales, etc?

Us ME's always submit wav files to labels for digital release.
ISRC codes are embedded into the DDP and/or CD master.

As we all know, there's no official field in which to attach IRSC's within the attributes of a wav file so we are relying on the label or client to supply the correct info to the aggregator.
Hermetech Mastering
Verified Member
#163
29th December 2012
Old 29th December 2012
  #163
But if the label or client are the ones who will benefit (or not) from inclusion (or not) of meta-data, then shouldn't it actually be their job? Just throwing that out there. I add everything to the DDP image, but it's up to the client/label to make sure that filters through to the right places.
Table Of Tone
Verified Member
#164
29th December 2012
Old 29th December 2012
  #164
Lives for gear
 
Table Of Tone's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babaluma View Post
But if the label or client are the ones who will benefit (or not) from inclusion (or not) of meta-data, then shouldn't it actually be their job? Just throwing that out there. I add everything to the DDP image, but it's up to the client/label to make sure that filters through to the right places.
Exactly right!
Bob Olhsson
Verified Member
#165
30th December 2012
Old 30th December 2012
  #165
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Jeff,

You are talking about inside the United States. There is a whole world outside of the United States and most of it actually pays artist royalties unlike U.S. broadcasters!

My friend who had an XM radio program was required to provide ISRCs for everything because he was told that's how they paid artists.

Also I question condemning the RIAA and the IFPI. Have you gone to Washington to lobby on behalf of artists' property rights? Whatever wrongs have been done to artists concerning iTunes sales have been done by their labels and not the RIAA or IFPI. I seriously doubt that any have because the majors are public companies who would have lawyers all over them if there were any legitimate complaints. The artists who whine about it have virtually always not paid their advances back.
#166
30th December 2012
Old 30th December 2012
  #166
Founder, CEO, President - Tunecore
 
Jeff Price's Avatar
 

Bob

I am talking about the world, not just the US.

Yes, I have lobbied on the hill and work with FMC whenever I can to influence policy

But more importantly, I get artists their money.

Also, I am currently a consultant for the Canadian PRO SOCAN. My information is not just about the US.

What you state regarding XM is not exactly accurate. XM is required to pay for the public performance of both the master and composition - two separate royalties with one going to the songwriter/publisher and one going to the master holder.

THe ISRC does not tie the two together.

In addition, XM is a digital transmission meaning it can be fingerprinted and tracked (and is by XM itself).

Their playlists of music are logged in their system headers and ISRCs are not needed for the tracking and reporting - not to mention, ISRCs are a lot more flawed than digital tracking

As an example, look at TuneSat. TuneSat fingerprints a recording and tracks its use (and therefore the composition as well) on global broadcast television. This provides real time and verifiable proof of public performance of both the master and composition (just like XM).

There data shows that about only 20% of actual uses of the masters/compositions are being tracked (NOTE - this is occurring in the ISRC world that is being pushed on you).

In addition, XM must require a license to the (c) and (p) in order to exploit both. It must get this from the administrative rights holder (whomever that may be).

If the entity that controls that right is not a member of a PRO or collection agency (for master or composition), it must still get the license or be infringing. And as XM moves into direct licensing (as it did here in the US with Big Machine) it further does not need an ISRC to report as it is providing direct accounting back to the entity that controls the master

Or put more succinctly, no, XM does not need an ISRC in order to pay. They need a license and they must then report back to the entity that licensed to them

In regards to the RIAA and IFPI... are you kidding me? These are trade organizations representing the interest of its members - the major music companies, not the artists. Label interests and artist interest do not exactly line up.

Want some recent instances? Start with the recent Eminem lawsuit (he was very recouped) and move onto the lovely Mitch Glaser slipping four words into a midnight bill going through Congress changing the definition of Work For Hire so rights do not revert back to artists.

In 1970 Congress passed a law stating that 35 years after 1978 the recordings and songs “owned” by record labels or publishers would revert back to the artist or songwriter regardless of if the artist (i.e. The Eagles etc) or songwriter was recouped, un-recouped, etc.

As you can imagine, the labels are fighting it via the RIAA. According to the August 15th, 2011 New York Times article, “Record Industry Braces for Artists’ Battles Over Song Rights,” Steven Marks, general counsel for the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) stated,

“We believe the termination right doesn’t apply to most sound recordings.”

In 1999, to assure their position and not lose rights, they were sneaky little scumbags and literally attempted to quietly slip a midnight amendment into a bill going through Congress called “The Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act”. T

he bill was about “retransmissions of broadcast signals” (I kid you not). The RIAA had four words added to this bill that would take away the right for artists to own their recordings if they signed a major label deal. These four words would, by default, legally define the artists as “work for hires” and therefore the rights to the recordings could not revert back to them.

To quote the very comprehensive and well written August of 2000, Austin Chronicle article “Work For Hire,” (which you should read!)…

In 1999, “Turns out the amendment was added by a staffer named Mitch Glazer from the office of Subcommittee Chairperson Howard Coble, R.-N.C., Glazer now works for the RIAA, the organization that sought to have those four words included in the first place, and did so with alarming quiet.”

Fortunately, they were caught. The words were noticed and artists, and their lawyers, went to war. The result was that these four little words are no longer part of the bill. Which means that the courts have yet to rule if the labels are right or if the artists are right in regards to the reversion of rights.

There are many many many more examples of this type of behavior.

THese are not artist friendly organizations, they are label friendly organizations. Nothing wrong with that, but no way in hell I would ever ever ever trust them to represent an artist.

But more importantly and back on topic, even the majors do not use ISRCs to track anything. They get the info straight from Apple etc.

jeff
#167
30th December 2012
Old 30th December 2012
  #167
Founder, CEO, President - Tunecore
 
Jeff Price's Avatar
 

@Table Of Tone

The problem is, the entities using the recordings dont use ISRCs to track anything, they use their own unique IDs.

So are Apple's IDs "illegitimate"?

Jeff
Bob Olhsson
Verified Member
#168
30th December 2012
Old 30th December 2012
  #168
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Price View Post
...move onto the lovely Mitch Glaser slipping four words into a midnight bill going through Congress changing the definition of Work For Hire so rights do not revert back to artists.
Jeff, those words were slipped in because tech industry lawyers were claiming only individual artists and not labels had status to sue file looters. When informed of the reversion ramifications, the RIAA stepped up and took the lead getting it overturned.
#169
30th December 2012
Old 30th December 2012
  #169
Founder, CEO, President - Tunecore
 
Jeff Price's Avatar
 

Hi Bob

That's a factually false statement. The RIAA did not "step up". The RIAA stated their position quite clearly BEFORE Mitch slipped in the words (which the RIAA paid lobbyists to get in).

The continue to maintain the same position

It was actually a consortium of artists that took up the fight to get it pulled out.

Read the NY Times and Austin Chronicle articles. hell, speak to the RIAA itself and ask it its position

Ask any attorney etc

Look, we are just going to have to disagree on this point. You have your opinion, I have mine. I say the RIAA, IFPI etc have a history of being hostile to artists. You say they do not.

Im not going to change your opinion, your not going to change mine

But this helps me understand where you are coming from.

Jeff
#170
30th December 2012
Old 30th December 2012
  #170
Founder, CEO, President - Tunecore
 
Jeff Price's Avatar
 

oh, and by the way, Mitch now works for the RIAA

Jeff
Table Of Tone
Verified Member
#171
30th December 2012
Old 30th December 2012
  #171
Lives for gear
 
Table Of Tone's Avatar
 

Verified Member
So what else should we as ME's be doing when delivering wav files for digital release?

I normally always enclose either a PQ list or a list of ISRC's in the same folder as the wav files.
Us ME's normally already have a set of ISRC's to embed into the DDP so they've already been generated anyway.

The label will also sometimes issue a second set of ISRC's for MFiT digital release if I submit 96k 24 bit wav files.

Should I be advising the client to also aquire Tunecore ID's?

I just wanna do everything at my end to make sure the client ends up getting payed.
Bob Olhsson
Verified Member
#172
30th December 2012
Old 30th December 2012
  #172
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Table Of Tone View Post
So what else should we as ME's be doing when delivering wav files for digital release?...
I've always had my clients obtain their own ISRC registrant code because the recording is their property. It used to be free and now costs a one-time $75 administrative fee to sign up here in the U.S. That's a trivial expense compared to the time and money spent on creating just one song, much less a lifetime of work.

The ISRC identifies a particular master and is related to artist royalties as opposed to songwriter royalties which obviously would apply to many different artists and versions.

Where I'm coming from is supporting a single identification database in a global market because it simply makes good business sense. I think this is becoming more important to artists every day.
Table Of Tone
Verified Member
#173
30th December 2012
Old 30th December 2012
  #173
Lives for gear
 
Table Of Tone's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
I've always had my clients obtain their own ISRC registrant code because the recording is their property. It used to be free and now costs a one-time $75 administrative fee to sign up here in the U.S. That's a trivial expense compared to the time and money spent on creating just one song, much less a lifetime of work.

The ISRC identifies a particular master and is related to artist royalties as opposed to songwriter royalties which obviously would apply to many different artists and versions.

Where I'm coming from is supporting a single identification database in a global market because it simply makes good business sense. I think this is becoming more important to artists every day.
I agree with you Bob and I too have been advising artists to obtain their own registrant code from the P.P.L. which I think is still free here in the UK.
No artists have recently informed me otherwise.

No final parts leave here without ISRC codes embeded on the DDP or CD master.

As I already mentioned, some labels are now giving me two sets of codes.

ISRC's for CD release.
ISRC's for Mastered For iTunes release.

EMI told me that because MFiT is made from high res 96/24 audio, it has a different set of codes to the CD.

Have you also been seeing this from major labels?
Waltz Mastering
Verified Member
#174
30th December 2012
Old 30th December 2012
  #174
Lives for gear
 
Waltz Mastering's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Table Of Tone View Post
As I already mentioned, some labels are now giving me two sets of codes.

ISRC's for CD release.
ISRC's for Mastered For iTunes release.

EMI told me that because MFiT is made from high res 96/24 audio, it has a different set of codes to the CD.

Have you also been seeing this from major labels?
Are you passing them along to Mfit for them to tag the AAC's with? How are the codes getting to the final AAC?

I've seen this (below) but am slowly seeing Jeff's side as I've never seen a 3rd party group come forward that actually uses them.

Quote:
The Music Producers Guild’s Mastering Group has achieved a significant breakthrough for all recording artists and other copyright owners by working with the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) to create an industry standard for embedding ISRCs within digital music files.

This major step forward will make accurate file identification and content tracking much easier and could help royalty agencies develop more precise systems for payments, thereby safeguarding the incomes of all artists and copyright owners when their recordings are played on air.

MPG Mastering Group board member and Alchemy Mastering Engineer Barry Grint, who led the initiative, says: “ISRC stands for International Standard Recording Code. Every song released – and indeed every version of that song - is allocated a unique ISRC by the record label. In the past the ISRC information was included within sub data streams of a CD, so a track could be identified by its associated ISRC.

“However, now that we have entered the digital age and are increasingly using digital WAV files, the ability to securely associate ISRC data with specific tracks has been lost because the only common way to incorporate ISRC into a WAV file is via the file name. If someone renames the file – or if the name is truncated or amended by a software program – the vital ISRC information can easily be lost. Unfortunately many record companies are not aware of this and simply assume that ISRCs are being embedded into WAV files. Technically that just isn’t possible so many mastering engineers were simply adding the code to the file title, which was an insecure practise.”

The MPG Mastering Group recognized that this was a major problem and that the industry needed an approved method for embedding ISRC data within a WAV file. Fortunately the EBU had developed the Broadcast WAV File (BWF), a variant of the WAV file for use by broadcasters. Although this variation allows for metadata to be added within the file, no standard had been defined as to how and where the data should be stored. Also workstation manufacturers offering the ability to create BWF files did not have a consensus as to the fields in which data should be entered.

Barry Grint approached the EBU and asked them to adapt the BWF standard so that ISRC’s could once again be included in metadata in a regular way.

“The new system is simple to implement and the MPG is encouraging workstation manufacturers and record companies to use BWF in preference to WAV as the standard specification for file exchange,” Barry Grint says. “Once adopted, this system will allow ISRC to flow through the whole production chain. iTunes and other aggregators will be able to pull the ISRC through during encoding and broadcast playout systems can easily be adapted to recognise the ISRC, making airplay reporting far more accurate.

“This is a major step forward for the music industry as it gives us the opportunity to identify with certainty every digital Master file regardless of how that file is named. We would like to thank the team at the EBU for recognizing the importance of this to the MPG and the Music Industry worldwide and the speed with which they were able to bring this about. By making ISRC the cornerstone of asset management and royalty reporting, we should be able to ensure a more accurate system of royalty payments and writer/performer credits, thereby supporting the income of all recording artists and copyright owners well into the future.”
Table Of Tone
Verified Member
#175
30th December 2012
Old 30th December 2012
  #175
Lives for gear
 
Table Of Tone's Avatar
 

Verified Member
That's the whole issue right there!

Even though the clients/labels are passing the ISRC's onto the aggregators, the aggregators are obviously not passing the ISRC's onto the AAC's, in many cases because they are simply not adding the ISRC field to the ID3 tags.

There is an official ISRC field in an ID3 tag.

In Jaikoz, (Tagging software) it comes up under Musicbrainz as an actual field labelled ISRC.
Once that code is added in that field in Jaikoz, you can open the ID3 tag of the file in Kid 3 and it will show up as a field showing the code.
Vice versa.

It's the aggregators that are the problem here!

It would be great if Apple would except 16 and 24 bit Apple Lossless files for iTunes, then we could put the codes in ourselves and it would be added to the correct field.

Possibly something for the future because Apple Lossless is the real deal.
I've done many tests on it.
Bob Olhsson
Verified Member
#176
30th December 2012
Old 30th December 2012
  #176
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
This comes up on Apple's AACs?
Table Of Tone
Verified Member
#177
30th December 2012
Old 30th December 2012
  #177
Lives for gear
 
Table Of Tone's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
This comes up on Apple's AACs?
Yes, you can correctly attach an ISRC code to the ID3 tag of any AAC/ALAC/MP3/FLAC file using either Kid 3 (free software for mac/pee cee) or Jaikoz (not free but not expensive).

You won't be able to see the code on iTunes but it's embedded in the correct field of the ID3 tag of the file.

I guess many aggregators choose not to bother, which is the big problem here!

These two screenshots show a 24 bit Apple Lossless file with embedded ISRC code viewed from each piece of software.

I added these myself in the correct field but it just goes to show that Apple could also add them to their iTunes Plus purchased AAC format if they chose to.

Digital release is a complete mess IMO!
The artists make very little money from it and the CD is not gonna be with us for much longer, which is one of the reasons people are wanting to put vinyl out instead.

Edit: I've now taken down the two screenshots but just wanted to point out that ISRC's can be added to Apple files.
Quote
1
Bob Olhsson
Verified Member
#178
31st December 2012
Old 31st December 2012
  #178
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
I love it, my finger missed the reply button on the iPad and hit the thumbs down button and it can't be undone.

Anyhow, do the ISRCs come up on files Apple encoded?
huejahfink
Verified Member
#179
31st December 2012
Old 31st December 2012
  #179
Lives for gear
 
huejahfink's Avatar
 

Verified Member
I "undid" it by thumbing it back up again. No permanent scars
Bob Olhsson
Verified Member
#180
31st December 2012
Old 31st December 2012
  #180
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by huejahfink View Post
I "undid" it by thumbing it back up again. No permanent scars
Thanks!
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
ThePrez / Music Business
9
A27Hull / Geekslutz forum
11
spoogee / Music Computers
3

Forum Jump
 
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.