John Powell's SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY (2018) - Deluxe Edition 2020 / Intrada 2-CD edition October 31, 2023

[mstrox 6,647]

If reuse fees don’t kick in until 15,000, there is literally no barrier to our labels expanding any score from the oughts onward.  I don’t think this is an issue of them missing a 0 while they read...

[crumbs 14,304]

 

1 hour ago, BryonDavis said:

5000 is for scores before a date I cant quite remember. Pre 2005.  Anything after is 15k. I usually consult the union.

Digital rights usually stay with the studio. The fees vary for each release.

 

According to the Memorandum of Understanding 2015, the date was August 14, 2005. Apparently fees are waived for scores before that date (but I guess the 5,000 limit applies).

 

Just to clarify, when you say that limit went up to 15,000 after 2005, you're referring to CDs/mechanical rights, not digital/streaming sales?

 

Is that the reason Varese was able to expand Star Trek up to 6,500 units a few years back? No fees because the quantity stayed under 15,000 units.

 

9 minutes ago, mstrox said:

If reuse fees don’t kick in until 15,000, there is literally no barrier to our labels expanding any score from the oughts onward.  I don’t think this is an issue of them missing a 0 while they read...

 

Definitely an 'interesting' development. I thought prohibitive union fees were the entire reason the labels couldn't expand JW's post-2005 scores? And I'm sure we heard something similar when Intrada tried to release Avatar (the AFM refused to waive their fees).

 

Maybe the fees vary depending on composer, studio, film, etc.

[mstrox 6,647]

Mike Matessino has explicitly said as much, and MV from LLL has at least glanced at it in answers - Jay’s posted some of that above.  None of the labels make releases bigger than 5000 anymore, so in theory there would be no prohibitive cost to release an expansion and in fact the rules make it significantly less prohibitive than earlier scores?

[Jurassic Shark 12,030]

17 minutes ago, crumbs said:

Just to clarify, when you say that limit went up to 15,000 after 2005, you're referring to CDs/mechanical rights, not digital/streaming sales?

 

1 hour ago, BryonDavis said:

Streaming is unlimited. Paid downloads counts towards the limit before reuse kicks in.

 

7 hours ago, Jay said:

Just happened to come across this relevant quote from MV of LLL Records

 

Quote

The studios don't grant download rights to us. I wish they did but they don't. Even if they did, for the afm scores it could lead to incredibly high union rates should a title sell more than 5k units

 

https://filmscoremonthly.com/board/posts.cfm?forumID=1&pageID=3&threadID=134366&archive=0

[Disco Stu 15,495]

28 minutes ago, mstrox said:

If reuse fees don’t kick in until 15,000, there is literally no barrier to our labels expanding any score from the oughts onward.  I don’t think this is an issue of them missing a 0 while they read...

 

14 minutes ago, mstrox said:

Mike Matessino has explicitly said as much, and MV from LLL has at least glanced at it in answers - Jay’s posted some of that above.  None of the labels make releases bigger than 5000 anymore, so in theory there would be no prohibitive cost to release an expansion and in fact the rules make it significantly less prohibitive than earlier scores?

 

Exactly, I'm not sure what's missing here.  It seems like there might have been a game of Telephone, where these specialty label folks didn't actually read the documentation but had it explained to them by somebody who also had not read the documentation but had it explained to them by somebody who.... you get the idea.

 

This is the charitable interpretation that they were simply ignorant of the actual rules.

 

Or!  What are we missing?  Because obviously I haven't read the documentation either 

[Jurassic Shark 12,030]

5 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

Or!  What are we missing?  Because obviously I haven't read the documentation either 

 

Take one for the team and do it!

 

 

5 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

This is the charitable interpretation that they were simply ignorant of the actual rules.

 

Never underestimate the power of ignorance!

[Jay 37,304]

I don't know why three different people in the same industry would post 3 different interpretations of what is going on.

 

To collect them all in one post and so everyone is on the same page, here are the 3 different posts

 

MV Gerhard (La-La Land) on FSM, Feb 25 2019:

 

"The studios don't grant download rights to us. I wish they did but they don't. Even if they did, for the afm scores it could lead to incredibly high union rates should a title sell more than 5k units"

 

Mike Matessino (independent producer) on JWFan, December 1 2019:

 

"For AFM recordings made before July 3, 2005, NO reuse needs to be paid to the musicians at all, provided a) that it’s for a physical format release with a 5000 unit maximum, and b) that the musicians list is published, preferably in the packaging. For recordings made after that date, whatever the musicians were paid to record the score for the film has to be paid to them again, 100%. That’s why it’s called “reuse”. They were paid to play music for sync purposes, but an album is a new use.

 

So, hypothetically, if 120 people were paid $360,000 to record the music for the film (musicians, orchestrators, copyists, at an average of $3K a person), then a label would have to pay that exact same amount to AFM in order to put out an expanded album. That makes it impossible to consider even before you get to licensing, publishing, production and manufacturing.

 

The 2005 date was established in 2015 and applied to recordings going back 10 years prior, but unfortunately it was not a “sliding” date as it really should have been.

 

Mike"

 

Bryon Davis (Varese & Note For Note) on JWFan:

 

Sep 22 2020:

"There would be no reuse fees on any album selling less than 15K.  Also, streaming is forever.  There is another reason why bigger labels do this, the AFM does not count streams against the reuse payment threshold."

 

Sep 23 2020:

"I have released many AFM scores of the last few years that allow you to sell up to 15k with no reuse. With a couple of big releases I've worked on AFM grants us no reuse for up to 15k on scores after a certain date (not remembering that date).  So I doubt Disney is going to pay reuse on anything under 15k for this expansion."

 

Sep 25 2020:

"Streaming is unlimited. Paid downloads counts towards the limit before reuse kicks in."

"5000 is for scores before a date I cant quite remember. Pre 2005.  Anything after is 15k. I usually consult the union.

Digital rights usually stay with the studio. The fees vary for each release."

"The only obstacle is the studio in some cases. 5k pre 2005. 15k post 2005.  AFM L.A. and NY recordings."

 

If someone can make heads or tails of this I'm all for it!

[crumbs 14,304]

18 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

Or!  What are we missing?  Because obviously I haven't read the documentation either 

 

I'm sure they've done their due diligence on this one with the union... they probably deal with them on a weekly basis!

 

But reading the actual agreements, there's a lot of legal jargon (standard for these types of contracts) but I didn't see anything that lined up with the pervading view of reuse fees being the equivalent of paying the orchestra the same costs as the actual recording.

 

There were, as @BryonDavis pointed out, only references to fees not applying so long as units stayed beneath a 15,000 threshold. There's several mandates around the AFM logo on album artwork, and including a list of musicians who performed on the score (LLL Titanic springs to mind).

 

So I'm not really sure what to think!

[mstrox 6,647]

Byron, please expand da new scores, the other labels are cowardly

 

WAR HORSE

[Jay 37,304]

His name is Bryon, not Byron

[crumbs 14,304]

Bryon, any chance you could please inquire with the AFM about expansions for:

• Memoirs of a Geisha
• Munich
• Tintin
• War Horse
• Lincoln
• The Book Thief
• The BFG
• The Post

...because it would be hugely appreciated here

[Jay 37,304]

Don't forget Mike Matessino has been officially assigned with doing every Williams/Spielberg expansion

 

Quote

The music business has evolved to the point where boutique label soundtrack reissues, which were not even blips on the radar years ago, are now big blips. After doing 1941 for La-La Land Records there were a series of conversations which ultimately led to new lines of communications opening and methodologies being put in place when we started Empire of the Sun and A.I. Artificial Intelligence. Working on adjusting the music and sound mix for Mr. Spielberg’s extended version of 1941 last year (and hosting the big screening event we did of it last March) helped solidify things. So a natural synergy just fell into place where I have been assigned to take care of all of the restorations and reissues and deal with all of the Williams & Spielberg approvals. The Back to the Future trilogy got added to the mix at the same time, as Bob Gale was spearheading that and as Alan Silvestri is represented by the same people as John Williams. So it’s become a process of working as part of a team where my job is to preserve the music and present it as definitely as possible and with the approval of the artists.

 

https://www.jwfan.com/?p=8269

[crumbs 14,304]

Of course @Jay, I was only joking No one on JWFan wants anyone except Mike handling these scores (I doubt JW's team would authorize anyone else to handle them anyway).

 

Just curious having such divergent information from different labels. Hopefully just miscommunication somewhere in the chain; fingers crossed more post-2005 scores can be expanded, I'd love Tintin and Memoirs of a Geisha.

 

If anyone wants to do their own research around AFM agreements:

• Basic Theatrical Motion Picture Agreement
• 2005 Memorandum of Understanding to the Basic TV Film & Basic Theatrical Motion Picture Agreements
• 2010 Memorandum of Understanding to the Basic TV Film & Basic Theatrical Motion Picture Agreements
• 2015 Memorandum of Understanding to the Basic TV Film & Basic Theatrical Motion Picture Agreements

I believe all 4 links are relevant; the initial agreement plus 3 memorandums which add various clauses regarding digital rights and so forth.

[Jurassic Shark 12,030]

Someone should do a PhD on the subject.

[Jay 37,304]

Reading the three sets of quotes again,

 

MV & MM 's comments are in total agreement with each other: pre-2005 and under 5k pressed? Doable!  pre-2005 and over 5k pressed? Too expensive!

 

MM's comment then adds more info about post-2005: Too expensive, no matter how many pressed!

 

All good so far.

Then Bryon's comments muddy the waters.

 

According to him, the AFM actually made things EASIER for post-2005 scores, upping the limit from 5k to 15k... but doesn't specific a fee change tied to that date, only saying "fees vary for each release"

 

Now I MIGHT have figured out the discrepancy; Bryon can correct me if I'm wrong, but when he said "With a couple of big releases I've worked on AFM grants us no reuse for up to 15k on scores after a certain date", I assume that meant a FIRST RELEASE of a modern score, IE an OST album; I think when it comes to REVISITING a score that already had an OST album, THAT'S when these more expensive post-2005 fees kick in.

 
Just a theory

[crumbs 14,304]

4 minutes ago, Jay said:

Now I MIGHT have figured out the discrepancy; Bryon can correct me if I'm wrong, but when he said "With a couple of big releases I've worked on AFM grants us no reuse for up to 15k on scores after a certain date", I assume that meant a FIRST RELEASE of a modern score, IE an OST album; I think when it comes to REVISITING a score that already had an OST album, THAT'S when these more expensive post-2005 fees kick in.

 

Star Trek 2009... 5,000 unit first pressing followed by a 1,500 unit second pressing?

 

Unless the OST didn't sell more than 15,000 units or something convoluted like that. The OST was only 45 minutes, I wonder if that's a factor? There's references to thresholds of minutes in those agreements I linked above.

[Jay 37,304]

I remember someone posting online around the time that the 2009 OST album came out that it was only 45 minutes long because they knew it would sell more than 15,000 copies and that was some magic number of minutes from the AFM that would allow them to do that.  The gist of the post was that if it was longer than 45 minutes, after 15,000 were sold they'd literally have to either take it down from their website or pay a insurmountable fee to the AFM to keep it in print beyond that... but at under 45 minutes (it runs 44:54), they could sell more than 15,000 and keep it in print indefinitely.

 

I can't remember now who it was that posted that or where to find that post now. 

 

 

I'm guessing for the sequel OSTs, after the first one was a hit, a special deal was negotiated to allow them to be both longer than 45 minutes and sell more than 15,000 copies without issues.

 

 

For the three Deluxe Editions, I believe Paramount, the AFM, and Varese worked out a special deal together to make those happen, that didn't follow the "standard" AFM fee structure that would apply if no negotiating happened

 

I mean, when it comes down to it, that's all Disney Records has to do to make the JW sequel scores happen. "Hey, we want to release these scores and pay all your musicians for their work on it, but this standard fee structure won't make that possible.  Let's come to an agreement so we can both make money here".

[crumbs 14,304]

14 minutes ago, Jay said:

I mean, when it comes down to it, that's all Disney Records has to do to make the JW sequel scores happen. "Hey, we want to release these scores and pay all your musicians for their work on it, but this standard fee structure won't make that possible.  Let's come to an agreement so we can both make money here".

 

Sure, it can probably be negotiated. Some profit is better than no profit (and even a 10% reuse fee for three 3-4 hour scores would be wildly lucrative for the musicians, especially with the volume of sales that Star Wars commands).

 

But none of the smaller labels have been able to crack that nut, even on smaller profit margins. Which seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face on the AFM's part, but whatever.

[Jay 37,304]

We have no idea if any specialty label has actually even attempted to negotiate with the AFM about an expansion of a post-2005 score, actually.  Maybe they've tried, maybe they haven't.  How would we know?

[Arpy 4,145]

It all rests on Disney, but we all know they'll never commit unless the money was there or magically Williams tapped them to do it.

[Jay 37,304]

I just remembered: LLL released an expanded version of Giacchino's "Medal of Honor: Airborne" score, recorded in 2006 and 2007 with the Hollywood Studio Symphony

 

It only added 8 more minutes than was on the OST album, though

[crumbs 14,304]

22 minutes ago, Jay said:

We have no idea if any specialty label has actually even attempted to negotiate with the AFM about an expansion of a post-2005 score, actually.  Maybe they've tried, maybe they haven't.  How would we know?

 

I'm certain someone from Intrada posted on FSM that they tried to negotiate an expansion of Avatar with the AFM, but they refused to budge on the fees. I'll never be able to find the post of course.

 

EDIT: This is the closest I can find so far:

 

[Jay 37,304]

To me, that reads as "we looked at the posted free structure, and realized we couldn't afford it", not "we attempted to negotiate with the AFM and it didn't work out"

 

Plus it's a second hand report anyway

[crumbs 14,304]

41 minutes ago, Jay said:

To me, that reads as "we looked at the posted free structure, and realized we couldn't afford it", not "we attempted to negotiate with the AFM and it didn't work out"

 

Plus it's a second hand report anyway

 

I'm certain Roger's original post specifically mentioned they tried to negotiate with the AFM.

 

EDIT: @Jay See below, I remembered correctly. They weren't able to negotiate an exception with the AFM for Avatar:

[Edmilson 7,393]

4 hours ago, crocodile said:

To tell the difference we'd have to know what Batu Sener sounds like on his own. Besides, additional composers can emulate the style quite well most of the time as was the case with Kamen, Horner etc.

 

 

Maybe Powell wrote the first version of the cue, and then Batu adjusted it to fit the final cut of the movie? Same case with the other cues that list additional composers. I guess they were working with material already provided by Powell, not creating cues of their own.

[crumbs 14,304]

2 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

 

Maybe Powell wrote the first version of the cue, and then Batu adjusted it to fit the final cut of the movie? Same case with the other cues that list additional composers. I guess they were working with material already provided by Powell, not creating cues of their own.

 

True. Powell might have just sketched an outline of the cue and handed it to Batu to fully orchestrate.

[Jay 37,304]

55 minutes ago, crumbs said:

 

I'm certain Roger's original post specifically mentioned they tried to negotiate with the AFM.

 

EDIT: @Jay See below, I remembered correctly. They weren't able to negotiate an exception with the AFM for Avatar:

 

Nice work finding the quote!  So that's one concrete example of a specialty label trying to negotiate a post-2005 title with the AFM and failing.

 

"New use rate", does that apply to the OST albums too, or is the proposed expansion the "new" use?

[crumbs 14,304]

9 minutes ago, Jay said:

"New use rate", does that apply to the OST album to or proposed expansion the "new" use?

 

It's vaguely worded. I'm more intrigued by the comment about Avatar being "on hold until the rate changes," which implies there's a sunset clause/sliding scale where the fee reduces after X years (and Intrada are holding out for a certain period of time).

 

Otherwise, if the prohibitively expensive rates were ad infinitum, wouldn't he have said the release is simply unviable unless the AFM changes their rules? Surely you wouldn't put a title "on hold" unless you knew there was X amount of time before you could release it, otherwise you'd be waiting indefinitely with no guarantee of success.

[Jay 37,304]

I don't think he was implying that at all, I think he was simply saying that they can't do it until the fee structure changes (hopefully) some day.  I doubt anyone, even heads of specialty music labels, knows if the AFM has plans to change their overall pricing plan one day or not

[Drew 590]

Someone should infiltrate the AFM or run for one of their offices or something to put a stop to this nonsense.

[crumbs 14,304]

At the very least the AFM do negotiate with labels, seemingly without much success.

 

In the meantime, thousands of scores are gathering dust when the labels could get that music released and promote the talented musicians in their union. I totally understand the fees for big record labels with huge profit margins, but surely common sense prevails with these smaller boutique releases.

 

[crocodile 7,984]

It's all well and good but shouldn't we be happy musicians are getting paid for using the recordings of their work? As harsh as jt might be for us collectors (and small labels) it is not exactly unfair, is it?

 

Karol

[Holko 9,499]

1 minute ago, crocodile said:

It's all well and good but shouldn't we be happy musicians are getting paid for using the recordings of their work? As harsh as jt might be for us collectors (and small labels) it is not exactly unfair, is it?

 

Karol

Except if the prices are too high to pay and so they aren't paid, they don't get a dime.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

2 minutes ago, crocodile said:

It's all well and good but shouldn't we be happy musicians are getting paid for using the recordings of their work? As harsh as jt might be for us collectors (and small labels) it is not exactly unfair, is it?

 

Karol

 

[crumbs 14,304]

4 minutes ago, crocodile said:

It's all well and good but shouldn't we be happy musicians are getting paid for using the recordings of their work? As harsh as jt might be for us collectors (and small labels) it is not exactly unfair, is it?

 

Karol

 

No problem with them being paid (and they're paid for the original scoring sessions, not to mention subsequent payments for each video release and TV screening).

 

It's more the absurdity of charging such exorbitant fees to release decade old scores, making it unaffordable for the only companies interested in releasing them. Everyone loses, basically.

[Richard Penna 3,673]

The problem, as I understand it, isn't the fees themselves, but that they have to be paid upfront, so LLL/Intrada/Varese, etc, have to pay a lump sum regardless of how many units they shift.

 

If they were able to pay based on sales, things might be different.

[Dr. Rick 1,155]

30 minutes ago, Drew said:

Someone should infiltrate the AFM or run for one of their offices or something to put a stop to this nonsense.

 

 

[Drew 590]

Are people seriously complaining about not having a CD option? I think digital only but having the music is what counts. Plus CD quality isn’t even top notch anymore.

[Jay 37,304]

What else are people gonna talk about?  It was announced 2 months before we can actually hear it

[Jurassic Shark 12,030]

34 minutes ago, Drew said:

Are people seriously complaining about not having a CD option? I think digital only but having the music is what counts. Plus CD quality isn’t even top notch anymore.

 

I guess you prefer state-of-the-art 320 kbps mp3 files.

[blondheim 1,157]

I would like a CD for nerdy collector's reasons. I will still buy the digital lossless if that is all that is available though.

[Drew 590]

10 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

I guess you prefer state-of-the-art 320 kbps mp3 files.

 

It's better to buy digital if they sell 24 bit lossless files.

[Dr. Rick 1,155]

Sorry but I'm old-fashioned, I still love my CD collection.  I have a lot of digital-only soundtracks that I wish were on CD.

[mstrox 6,647]

I prefer CDs for archival purposes, and potential resale purposes.  I listen to my music on sports headphones - I don’t get anything out of better-than-CD quality

[Molly Weasley 100]

45 minutes ago, ATXHusker said:

Sorry but I'm old-fashioned, I still love my CD collection.  I have a lot of digital-only soundtracks that I wish were on CD.

Agreed. Call me old-fashioned but CDs are practically the only thing I listen to in my car. It's also the best way to memorize an album. 

[blondheim 1,157]

I still make mixtapes for my friends and I

[Skelly 261]

With the AFM it's a chicken-or-the-egg situation. For 25 years film score fans have been complaining about how prohibitive the AFM's new use fees are, but over that same period of time those royalties have been becoming more and more precious to the musicians. In 1999 Local 47 wages totaled almost $50 million and by 2013 that total had sunk to barely $15 million. For most musicians that's not livable, and so they get their most important paychecks through residuals. If even that isn't enough to make ends meet, you have little choice but to be a "scab" and hope the only people who hear about it are sympathetic.

 

Obviously the musicians don't like this whole development. And they don't like the AFM's leaders who are doing little/nothing to stay competitive with London, where most of the work is moving. LA is the only place asking for these high backend payments. Their justification is that they're some of the best musicians in the world, but that's not a realistic appeal to a producer who only sees music as the thing which goes behind the dialogue/sfx. Why not save some cash and do it abroad?

 

Local 47 has tried in the past to experiment with a London-type "buyout" plan -- having much higher upfront wages in place of new use royalties -- but once the AFM caught wind of that they shut it down. The musicians are very split about it and the leadership of the AFM (who have been winning elections unopposed for a decade now) only wants to keep the status quo.

 

Since all work shut down overnight in March that annual residuals check became so critical that AFM members got theirs a full month early. I'm sure at least a few people who thought a buyout clause was the best way forward are now thinking twice about removing new use entirely, because otherwise a lot of them would have been totally financially stranded.

[gkgyver 1,645]

3 hours ago, Drew said:

Are people seriously complaining about not having a CD option? I think digital only but having the music is what counts. Plus CD quality isn’t even top notch anymore.

 

Just because Amazon presses garbage CDRs doesn't mean CD isn't the vastly superior audio format. 

[Manakin Skywalker 4,891]

1 hour ago, gkgyver said:

Just because Amazon presses garbage CDRs doesn't mean CD isn't the vastly superior audio format. 

 

It's objectively not superior to 192khz/24-bit files. I like having physical sets, but to say they are superior in 2020 is simply not true.

[BryonDavis 172]

9 hours ago, Richard Penna said:

 

9 hours ago, crumbs said:

At the very least the AFM do negotiate with labels, seemingly without much success.

 

In the meantime, thousands of scores are gathering dust when the labels could get that music released and promote the talented musicians in their union. I totally understand the fees for big record labels with huge profit margins, but surely common sense prevails with these smaller boutique releases.

 

We can release anything. The issue is what some studios charge, availability of sources and if the studio even wants to do it.

13 hours ago, Jay said:

I don't know why three different people in the same industry would post 3 different interpretations of what is going on.

 

To collect them all in one post and so everyone is on the same page, here are the 3 different posts

 

MV Gerhard (La-La Land) on FSM, Feb 25 2019:

 

"The studios don't grant download rights to us. I wish they did but they don't. Even if they did, for the afm scores it could lead to incredibly high union rates should a title sell more than 5k units"

 

Mike Matessino (independent producer) on JWFan, December 1 2019:

 

"For AFM recordings made before July 3, 2005, NO reuse needs to be paid to the musicians at all, provided a) that it’s for a physical format release with a 5000 unit maximum, and b) that the musicians list is published, preferably in the packaging. For recordings made after that date, whatever the musicians were paid to record the score for the film has to be paid to them again, 100%. That’s why it’s called “reuse”. They were paid to play music for sync purposes, but an album is a new use.

 

So, hypothetically, if 120 people were paid $360,000 to record the music for the film (musicians, orchestrators, copyists, at an average of $3K a person), then a label would have to pay that exact same amount to AFM in order to put out an expanded album. That makes it impossible to consider even before you get to licensing, publishing, production and manufacturing.

 

The 2005 date was established in 2015 and applied to recordings going back 10 years prior, but unfortunately it was not a “sliding” date as it really should have been.

 

Mike"

 

Bryon Davis (Varese & Note For Note) on JWFan:

 

Sep 22 2020:

"There would be no reuse fees on any album selling less than 15K.  Also, streaming is forever.  There is another reason why bigger labels do this, the AFM does not count streams against the reuse payment threshold."

 

Sep 23 2020:

"I have released many AFM scores of the last few years that allow you to sell up to 15k with no reuse. With a couple of big releases I've worked on AFM grants us no reuse for up to 15k on scores after a certain date (not remembering that date).  So I doubt Disney is going to pay reuse on anything under 15k for this expansion."

 

Sep 25 2020:

"Streaming is unlimited. Paid downloads counts towards the limit before reuse kicks in."

"5000 is for scores before a date I cant quite remember. Pre 2005.  Anything after is 15k. I usually consult the union.

Digital rights usually stay with the studio. The fees vary for each release."

"The only obstacle is the studio in some cases. 5k pre 2005. 15k post 2005.  AFM L.A. and NY recordings."

 

If someone can make heads or tails of this I'm all for it!

 

Ok. I went and asked a lawyer I know about this as I might be confused. Its complicated. There are some AFM deals you can opt into that allow sales up to 15k without Reuse. Other deals require payment upfront. Mike is right. I am mixing up deals. I'm out on this. I always check with AFM on all releases recorded in L.A. to verify obligations.