Видео

in the description of this video (above)

I think Spotify has lowered it now. I've had several clients get it with 10,000 monthly listeners. It's more about how many algorithm streams you're getting than streams. So 5,000 algorithm streams in one month may be enough to trigger eligibility. You're correct that by keeping that threshold high, they were just sending the message to new artists to "game the system" just to become eligible for Discovery Mode. Not good. So I think they have recently realized their error and now artists are getting it sooner - once they have good monthly activity in "radio" and "autoplay" algorithms.

Thanks for the nice feedback 😎 Lots of more good tips in the comments, so read those too.

@BandBuilderAcademy grand rising. Thank you for the heads-up and will do!

😅 There may have been a change of heart in the "best 5" versus "all"... The newest insight is that there is plenty of "autoplay" and "radio" inventory... so they can take more of your deep catalog. But the main thing is "stream lift". If you have higher than a 65% lift in streams, then it makes sense "royalty wise". See how it goes with your best 5, and maybe it moves the needle. If not, go back to how it was. The reach has a lot to do with how many active listeners you have. So the limits of exposure are different for each artist.

@@BandBuilderAcademyThank you for the update! I really appreciate it 🙏🏾

@@ChiefTakinawa no problem

I'm not sure how Content ID (RUclips) will handle this. A cover song is something you record in the studio with your own recording. What you are talking about is using the master recordings of the original, (more like karaoke), that is NOT a "cover song". The publisher (composition owner) will most likely just put a "claim" on it so the publishing money is passed through to them. The owner of the master sound recording will have options, and I'm not sure which specific options (in this case). There may be a slight chance that they would put a copyright "strike" on it and remove it. They may not want somebody else's vocals over top their master sound recording. And that is their right and decision to make. You bear all the risk in this situation.

@@BandBuilderAcademy I figured. It's hard as a vocalist only to make cover songs.

@@shanefreeman9758 Difficult roads lead to beautiful places. Collaborate with musicians. Enjoy the process and it won't be hard.

@@BandBuilderAcademy thanks and you are right. I uploaded some karaoke songs with me singing. RUclips gave me two strikes. Thanks again for the advice.

@@BandBuilderAcademy last question. I have someone that can do the background instruments of a song. If I use that and my vocals can I upload that to RUclips? I'm not trying to make money I want feedback.

If you are not trying to make money, you can put any music on RUclips and Content ID will ensure the publisher is given the opportunity to monetize it or take it down (if they wish). I'm not going to redo the video with terms/definitions at this point. Next (This is only relevant if you are trying to make money) - but if you record the instrumentals for a song on your own without vocals, this is called a karaoke track, and has to be licensed to be commercially released. That is totally different than a cover song. Karaoke licenses are custom license directly with a publisher (and they are not compulsory like a cover song is). If you sing over top of a "karaoke track", that is also not a cover, that is more like an un-licensed remix because you are using somebody else's master recording. You would need to license the master recording from the master owner - which is a different party than the publisher or songwriter. You would need a separate license from the owner of the composition (publisher and songwriters). But most of you reading this comment are not trying to make money this way (you just don't want to break the law). But RUclips has Content ID in place for this very reason. So don't make money, just post your video and let Content ID (RUclips) do the job it was designed to do.

@@BandBuilderAcademy Thank you very much for your clear explanation. We have an original song in the channel where we are planning to post cover songs. Fingers crossed hopefully no license strikes. Thank you again. Wish you all the best for your future contents.

appreciate that 🙌

Thanks for the tip on these. I have heard about some individual artists (or their publishers) being more strict than others. The strike is a bit much in my opinion, and I don't know what basis they are using to justify it with RUclips.

It's not a cover song... Foreign language versions of songs fall into the "derivative works" category in terms of licensing. It's very difficult because you need the permission (a license) from all rightsholders of the composition. Difficult to do. You can try Harry Fox Songfile, or Easy Song Licensing. Inquire whether the particular song's publisher offers a "foreign language version" license. Some publishers do have that, just like they have licenses for "karaoke". But it's case by case. And getting the publishers to even consider a special license, is difficult and expensive. They don't want to do the license work for less than thousands of dollars.

Hey @tyrannnocaster can you elaborate on this? "But since RUclips also prevents the video from appearing on my channel or in anybody's search results" Never heard of that before. You might inquire with RUclips because that's not what should be happening.

@@BandBuilderAcademy Well, that's what RUclips told me, and the video is on my channel, but it shows as "unlisted". I am able to send the link to people (that's how it got its few views) directly. I don't even bother trying to contact RUclips/Google; if Rick Beato has trouble, what luck am I going to have? But you know what, I'm going to post the link in a sub-comment to this comment, just to see what happens; that way, if they delete the comment, this one should still stay here. I'm curious to see what happens.

@@Tyrannocaster OK, thanks for that explanation. When you mentioned this happening to Rick Beato, that made me think that this is not RUclips causing it. With the Content ID system, it gives control and decision making privileges to the copyright owner. So it could be the case that one of the publishers of the song decided to choose the option that allows you to have the video "on RUclips" but linked only. I didn't know they did this, but perhaps its one of the many options the publishers have to choose from. So how publishers respond to each new video you release can be different.

No problem. And since the video was published 6 months ago, there is a change.. I think as long as your songs are getting more than a 65% "stream lift" you should put it into the program. So Yes, if it means putting all your songs in, do it. Unless there is a situation where you don't want a particular song in there for some reason. Use the program while it lasts. Also, I found out that Discovery Mode submissions of tracks goes by URI... so if you have multiple releases of a song (single, EP, Album) make sure to submit all URI's of a particular song. Todd

@@BandBuilderAcademy you are awesome!! Thank you for the advice !!

@@BandBuilderAcademy Can you elaborate more on the change, have you noticed a difference lately in the program?

@@PSPOD I think it didn't change, it's just that there is more inventory than I realized. There is more room for more of your songs. putting more songs in the program, doesn't guarantee you will get more streams, but you will have more chances to re-surface an older song. So it's worth trying deeper catalog, rather than just your top 5 performers. As long as the songs are getting more than a 65% lift, you might as well put it in. You will get more streams than before, and if you're over that 65% lift you will earn more money.

@@toddmccarty5355 Gotcha, I wonder how much catalog's past data affects the number of streams. I have a song on an editorial and another with a higher popularity score, but the program prioritizes an older song rather than the one's doing well organically. Have you seen any correlation between song age and stream lift?

There is something I found in subsequent research and hearing from artists with larger catalogs 30-100 songs or more. If you have a bigger catalog Discovery Mode can handle more volume. So try the strategy you mentioned above. Another consideration I’m learning about (and sharing) is the Stream Lift Rate. If that ever falls below 65%, it’s time to remove that song from the program ( because it risks not being profitable any more) Todd

@@toddmccarty5355 perfect. super helpful. Also just curious since we are in our first month... what should I expect the metrics to look like on a track that carries over into its second month? I would expect it would not see the amount of lift it saw from the 28 days of NOT being in the program to its initial month of being in the program, so how do you evaluate that? Or should we expect continual growth?

@kennharris997 The strategy can work for an album the same way it could an EP. For new/developing artists - it's OK to spread a 12 song album over 8 or 9 months. If you're established and have hundreds/thousands of fans, waiting 12 months for an album can be excruciating. I don't recommend releasing an entire album 1 song at a time. Leave some songs as surprises on album release day. Give the fans who waited, the payoff of 3 or 4 unreleased tracks the day the album releases.

The video would be short... Don't do them (derivative works). Or at least don't release them commercially. Unless you have a major publisher or label behind you, you won't be able to clear a derivative work unless you are prepared to drop $10,000.

Never mind. Nowhere near the 25,000 monthly listeners :/

@@ImWalkingWithScissors no problem. Good luck to you. It's not an easy number to hit. I'm seeing artists get accepted at the 10k to 12k monthly listeners, but a good portion of those listeners have to be hearing it through organic methods (algorithm play in Spotify radio or autoplay algorithm). Don't use playlist promotion or any suspicious looking promo services. Social media, RUclips, word of mouth, advertising. Those are all ways to get started.

@@BandBuilderAcademy I’m sitting at 1300 right now with about 70% coming from auto play and radio feature. Each day is more and more. So possible turnaround for discovery mode soon. Would be super cool.

@@ImWalkingWithScissors Hang in there 🙌

thanks for letting us know. Please report back with your results :)

how did it go?

You don't need to buy that bulk streaming license from Harry Fox Songfile. Once you distribute your cover song to Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon (streaming), RUclips Music, etc., those music services will pay the mechanical royalty directly (they are responsible for paying to the rightsholders now). There has been a chance since this video published (and I will update with a new video soon). Many distributors are still requiring that YOU provide a license. And if that is the case, get the "digital downloads" one, not the bulk streaming one. The reason distributors want proof of a license is because they are still distributing your MP3 downloads to iTunes and Amazon MP3, and a few other services that still sell MP3's. And you have to have a "digital downloads" license for that. But since those don't make much sales anyway, you could request that your distributor NOT distribute MP3s, and do "streaming only". Some distributors may allow it, some will not.

@@toddmccarty5355 Thank you! Appreciate the reply!

You can take that approach. Many small creators do. Just be aware that there is a risk that if your video one day does make a lot of money (without a sync license), the publisher can claim the money made while it was unlicensed (and they always reserve the right to sue if somebody infringes on their rights without licensing). What I recommend is using the RUclips Content ID system that is in place for the very specific purpose of allowing small creators like you to get started, and at the same time paying the rightsholders who deserve to be paid. You can get started with the idea of NOT making money. Justin Bieber didn't get paid on the dozens of cover versions of songs he did on RUclips before he made his millions on his original music. Take that same approach.

No you wont get a bill, and it doesn't work like that. It's not a hard cost that you pay. Spotify deduct it from royalties that the pay to your distributor. And in every case you will earn more money than you did - if you were not "in the program". The volume of your streams will increase each month you are in the program, but you make slightly less per/stream. Watch the video again or visit the Spotify website in the video description for full details.

@@BandBuilderAcademy wow man thanks you really clarified on the issue for me, now I get how the tool works and won’t be worried to use it in the future anymore 🙏🏾♥️

@@JASSEY.06 glad to help

Hey @houdinididiit I'm sorry, but the reason it is murky is because the copyright laws are also pretty vague when it comes to music composition, and were written before the internet, RUclips, Apple, Spotify were even conceived. There has been some updates, even as recently as the creation of the MLC (Mechanical Licensing Collective) in January 2021. You could attempt to get a mechanical license for your song, but just konw that if the publisher does reject it because they don't believe it's a "cover" and they claim that in their interpretation of the copyright law, it's a "derivative work", then your license will be rejected and the application fee is not refundable. That's your only risk. If it is rejected, then you can attempt to release the music on RUclips (only) and see if Content ID will allow it, or if it will again be rejected by the publisher. The only other option is to attempt to discuss this directly with the publishers and songwriters (all rights holders have a say in the matter). Most likely they will not respond to your request unless they see an opportunity to make a lot of money (more than $5,000 USD)

@@toddmccarty5355 Hey thanks so much Todd! Very helpful! 🙏 So what I'm getting from you and few others: 1) Get a mechanical license for the tune. Post it on my Apple, Spotify, etc, accounts anyway. I'm covered unless it's declared as a "Derivative" which needs more permission from the publisher/creator. They are the only ones who can grant "Derivative" permission. Fine. (The declaring of being a "Derivative" is still murky and subjective). I have Distrokid which will not only issue the mechanical license but will refund me if it's disputed, as per a recent email exchange I had. So, it doesn't hurt to try! 2) If I'm going to post a YT video (that typically requires a sync-license from the publisher who handles the creator) I should be ok if I don't monetize it. Most likely the publisher will find me and make a harmless "copyright claim" as opposed to a "copyright strike". A claim allows them to collect on my RUclips video after THEY monetize it. Fine. It's still publicity and a win for my release over on Apple, etc. 3) Worst case scenario: They they declare it as "Derivative" not to their liking and they force me to take it out of circulation everywhere. If I did make any earnings, it could become sticky as I will have to owe them my earnings. So that is something to watch? I'm not sure what to do here except not to spend a dime of any earnings from it for some time? 4) Best case scenario: After they monetize my video, and my recording is still out there on Spotify, etc, I get a call from a film producer wanting to use it. Acquiring a sync-license is on them to negotiate with the publisher, not me. If it takes off on a commercial level, we all win. They get their publishing royalties and I get mechanical royalties for the recording. Does all of this jive? It's been a LONG headache of a week in pulling together these four points regarding a potential "Derivative". I even called BMI my PRO, and got short answers.

I think so, please check with We Are The Hits. It will be a custom license, so they should be able to clear everything you need.

From my understanding, they take a percentage of your stream revenue. You don’t pay anything out of pocket.

Hi Michael, You're describing "derivative works" and they will be extremely difficult to license and get permission from the original songwriters and publishers. If you want to release music commercially I would either stick to 100% original music, or do a cover song. I will not discuss derivative work songs here, because derivative works are a specific area of copyright law that I am not qualified to discuss.

What that other person told you was true. RUclips has a system called Content ID that will identify it and "claim" it (that claim is like an automatic RUclips license). A "claim" isn't bad for you. Content ID claims make sure the proper songwriters and publishers are paid on the advertising. If you plan to release the video/song outside of RUclips, that is when you would need to be concerned about licensing.

@@BandBuilderAcademy thank you so much!

no problem @@iiSnipeFoLyffe

@@BandBuilderAcademyso for doing only youtube covers of songs which are identifiable by their Contend ID we don’t need a license? What about playing the song live on a live stream or putting it on tiktok?

@@thebellbrothers3279 I don't know the specific rules for a live stream on RUclips. I also don't know the specific rules for TikTok.

no problem!

A. Thanks for the feedback B. I was a drummer and I can't even hear that frequency 🤣 C. It's been fixed on future videos, I discovered Adobe's audio enhancement tool 👊

The rules are different for TikTok and RUclips. I won't address TikTok here as I don't know the details of that. As for RUclips, you can play the guitar over the original song's recording and put it on your personal RUclips channel. You just can't monetize that. If your channel is trying to make money through the RUclips Partner Program (YPP), you cannot monetize the video. RUclips's Content ID will pick up that you are using the original song in your video and a "claim" will be placed on it. That's not bad. Think of it like an automatic license. The copyright owners have claimed it and they will be paid automatically through Content ID and advertising royalties, if RUclips shows an Ad on your video.

⁠@@toddmccarty5355thanks! What if you create the backing track, so it’s not the original recording you just recreated the parts from scratch? Is that still subject to copyright claim? I suppose it would be based on your comments but I’m not sure if it makes any difference if you aren’t using the artist’s actual recording. Lastly, is it easy to choose which videos to NOT monetize? For example let’s say I want to monetize certain videos of original music, but then do covers where I don’t monetize. Is that feasible to do on RUclips? Thanks again!

Sounds like you need to join Band Builder Academy. You get a free coaching call with it, and I'll jump on the phone and teach you how to reduce your overwhelm and give you a workflow that has you do "only" the things that will move the needle, and put aside the rest. - Todd

You'll need to promote your newer songs to get them to a bigger level in the algorithm. I recommend you join Band Builder and you can learn all the ways to get your new tracks going in the algorithm.

no problem. 🙌

Thanks 🙌

I would change your distribution plan level to one that allows you to choose a release date. Don't release Christmas music in March. If you're serious about promoting your music, you need a distribution plan that allows you to release music on dates that you can control. I find it shocking that distributors even have an option to "throw" your music out there at a random time.

Yes. And for others wondering about this "timing"...when you are launching a brand new music project, I wouldn't say there is a best time. Maybe just avoid a busy holiday week.

🙌

Thanks for the comment. Hope you check out some of the other videos. 🙌