even if it's affordable (realtively), be prepared for a long wait. You need permission for everyone who has any rights to the song, which could be 6-7 companies. Most of them want proof of permission from the "other" company beforethey give theirs to you...

good luck. :)

None of us can say for certain, each piece of music and/or artist would be different. I feel comfortable in saying it would cost thousands of dollars, perhaps tens of thousands. It simply isn't financially feasible for most of us here (or our clients) to license a major artist's music.

Now, having said that, there is always the exception. But finding that exception could take a incredible amount of time, and it may not suit the client's needs.

Eric, it's not you or me being "small guys," it's the bank account of our client that makes the difference. The people granting the license could care less who you or I are. The question is: Can the client afford what he's asking for? Unless your client has very, very deep pockets, it's always best to steer them away from using major artists/lables music for their videos. It's just to darn expensive.

[EDIT]

“There’s a pivotal scene in Hoop Dreams,” recalled Peter Gilbert, “where it’s Arthur’s 18th birthday and his mother said, ‘Isn’t it wonderful that he made it to 18?’ and they sing ‘Happy Birthday.’ ‘Happy Birthday’ costs. They’re brutal about it. You’re not going to get a deal on ‘Happy Birthday.’” It cost $15,000 to $20,000 for just one verse of “Happy Birthday.” (from the Center for Social Media site)

So ask your client if he could ante up $15,000 to $20,000, just as a starting point.

Licenses for use of music in video is just plain ridiculous. Even if money was no object theres no way I would pay that kind of money to use an artists music regardless of how pivotal and important it is to the shot.

Personally, I am going down the route now of trying to find UNSIGNED bands that would do it for a fraction of that and they get to make a little coin and get some exposure. Anything commercial to me just isn't worth the hassle or the cash especially on small/low/indie type budgets.

I am going down the route now of trying to find UNSIGNED bands that would do it for a fraction of that and they get to make a little coin and get some exposure.

Then then is the place to start looking, Versus Media.

Pardon the pitch, but if you need music in any style, I'm an experienced music producer/composer with superb musicians at my disposal. Drop me an email (dedric at echomg dot com) for more info. Yes, it's quite a bit more affordable than licensing a ZZ Top or Madonna song and I'll be happy to send work your way if the opportunity arises - saves you having to search for a band, studio, producer, etc. when you have other things to do. Capturing the sound a your client is looking for without blatantly copying the artist or song in question is no problem - I've done this before - and obviously it can be synced to video if needed.

Eric:

I have an acquaintance who is a semi-retired musician (outstanding guitar player) and back in the day he (through his manager etc) dealt with ZZ Top on an album he was putting out with his band years ago. I got with him this morning after reading your post and told him what you wanted to do. He couldn't remember the exact amount but said it was substantial but not extreme. He licensed "Hot, Blue, and Righteous" and had to deal with all kinds of stipulations (the xx amount of initial copies, xx amount of potential copies, more money if the album hit it big etc etc) so your mileage may vary. As an aside, he did mention he licensed some Willie Dixon songs at the same time and it was a piece of cake....one fee (much cheaper) with no stipulations. I think his hint was find something similar and go with it.

Bringing up ZZ Top is interesting.....I don't want to contribute to starting a copyright thread - heaven knows we have enough of those - but remember the "La Grange" law suit with Chrysler....

That case did a lot of things for copyright but I find it interesting how ZZ Top was sued by La Cienega for "ripping off" Boogie Chillen when they made "La Grange"and then ZZ Top sued Chrysler for using a "version" of La Grange for one of their new cars. ZZ Top won and then lost one (La Cienega) and won the other - I guess they used the money from Chrysler to break even on what they had to give La Cienega after Clinton signed the bill overturning that original case and changing the face of copyright law forever and ensuring IP attorneys will live another day.....

Anyway, I digress....good luck with it. Let us know how it turns out.