They’re Finally Catching On

They’re Finally Catching On

One of the most important and far-reaching developments with composers over the past fifteen years or so has been the ability to self-publish one’s works. With the confluence of the advent of powerful personal computers, professional-level notation software, large-format printers, and the ability to reach musicians across the world through one’s own website, self-publishing has moved away from a cottage industry model to a very real and feasible option for many composers who do not become affiliated with a major publisher. The pros and cons of taking this route are myriad, but it has evolved into composers making a choice between little-work/little-gain (publisher) and way-more-work/way-more-gain (self-publisher) and, up until relatively recently, those have been the only two choices a composers could make.

Two of the major challenges with going the DIY self-publisher route center around production and distribution. Most composers are comfortable creating professional-grade score and parts and running them down to the post office as occasional one-offs, but as orders become consistent it can be daunting to keep up with such demands. Two of the most successful self-published composers, Jennifer Higdon and John Mackey, have to spend a considerable amount of their time in that role; Mackey beautifully describes the situation in a great 2009 blog post about self-publishing:

Is that difference of 400%-900% worth the time it takes to print, fold, staple, and mail a set of parts? To me, the answer is yes, but to a lot of composers, the answer is no. All of this takes a lot of time, and a lot of composers, understandably, would rather just compose and not worry about the business aspect of it. They just want to write the music, give it to a publisher, and not think about it anymore, and whatever income they collect, no matter the amount, is just a nice bonus. Most of those composers probably have other jobs—like teaching—or wealthy families to make that possible. I like to think of it like I also have a “day job,” and my day job is publishing my own music.

Over the past few years some composers have been looking for a middle ground between the “legacy” publisher/DIY self-publisher dichotomy—they aren’t interested in giving up 50% of their royalties and 90% of their sheet music sales, but they’re also turned off by the amount of time and effort a successful self-publishing endeavor requires. The options for a “third way” have been few and far between, primarily because there are few printing houses that are set up for dealing with the vagaries of printing sheet music and the fact that a self-published composer is just one person and few distributors will deal with individuals (most state up front that they only deal with established publishers).

That does not mean there haven’t been notable exceptions on this front. An early variation on the traditional publisher model was created by Bill Holab, who left the world of the brick-and-mortar publishers to start his own hybrid business overseeing a stable of composers and facilitating their various engraving, distribution, and management needs while allowing them to keep their publishing royalties. Recently this model was taken up by one of those traditional publishers with the introduction in 2011 of Project Schott New York, a pilot program from Schott Music Corporation and European American Music Distributors, LLC that has selected a list of composers and has created an online distribution system for selected works by those composers.

On the DIY side, there have been a couple of options that have worked to various degrees. Back in 2006, I came across the Houston-based composer Karim Al-Zand’s website and discovered that he was using the print-on-demand book publishing website It looked promising but the fact that the largest size paper you could have your works printed on was 8.5″x11″ made this option less than desirable. Another publisher, Subito Music, has attempted to tap into the growing self-publisher population by offering both printing and distribution services for composers not published by Subito themselves. During my interview with Lisa Bielawa she told me about working through their printing service—she would order scores and parts in bulk and then sell those herself—and she seemed quite satisfied with them.

So far these have been publishers and print houses trying to capitalize on the growing self-publishing trends, and now it’s the distributor’s turn…and it looks pretty damn good.

A few days ago, I came across a Facebook ad that mentioned a new printing and distribution service (imagine, a Facebook ad that was actually pertinent!). I followed it and discovered that J. W. Pepper & Son had initiated a new service called My Score. On the face of it, it looked promising: it is directly aimed at self-published composers, offering printing and distribution as well as the ability to create a profile page on their website to direct interested parties to individual composer’s catalogs. A one-time charge of $99 will get you in the door and there’s a $25 yearly fee—unless you sell over $400 of music, in which case the fee is waived. More importantly, the composer keeps the publishing royalties and the print music split is much better than any publishing agreement I’ve heard of—25% of print sales and 40% of digital sales (compare that to your industry standard 10% for all sales with a typical publisher)…and the composer sets the selling price (Pepper does state pricing minimums).

After several colleagues asked if I could delve further into this service, I contacted Ian McLoughlin from J. W. Pepper & Son with several questions: How long has this been going on? What made you decide to start this? What about composers who don’t cater to educational markets? Can I see an example of one of the composer pages?

Here’s his entire e-mail response:

We decided to create My Score because of the growing number of smaller “Self-Publishers” and composers who needed an outlet to sell their compositions. J.W. Pepper & Son has always prided itself on having an extensive list of available compositions, but in the past 10 years, there has been a noticeable movement toward self publishing, and J.W. Pepper has not been able to represent these smaller publishers. My Score now gives these smaller publishers the option to be represented in the J.W. Pepper database.

The service is only about two weeks old and we have about 20 composer/self publishers signed up already. Take a look at as an example.

Composers can distribute any work they would like to! Traditionally, Pepper markets to educational institutions and churches but if someone comes to us and needs a piece of music and it is in print, we will get the music for them.

My Score was created for the composer/self publisher that needs to get their music out to the masses. We have created a platform where the composer/publisher gets their own URL so they can market their compositions. We have given them a place for a bio, picture, social media links (You Tube, Twitter, Facebook) and their own website if they have one. If the composer does not have their own website, the provided URL would be a great place to start. For only $99, you get a platform to sell and promote your music. It would cost more to create their own site and maintain it!

The best part about our service is that we can provide the customers a printed or digital copy of the composer’s music. I believe we are the only service out there proving print and digital services.

My Score was not created as a way to replace the traditional composer/publisher relationship. We would recommend that a composer still try and have their works published by a publisher because a publisher will be able to market their compositions across the world and sales will be much greater with a publisher. My Score is for the composer/small publisher that has not been picked up by a publisher yet but still wants to make their music available.

I showed this to my studio last night and, while there were many questions, I came away impressed with the composer’s page as well as the individual work pages. The “marketplace” interface in which customers can purchase music looks very similar to Amazon (even to the point of allowing customer reviews). They allow for audio and video links within the individual work pages as well as PDFs from the uploaded scores. Ian let me know that international composers can sign up for the service as well (answering one of my Japanese student’s questions). Finally, there’s integration within social networks (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube) so you can have links from the Pepper page to your website and social networks.

To be honest, I’m excited about this on two levels. On a pragmatic level, this looks like something I could use—with my teaching and many other projects, I don’t have the time to go all in on a self-publishing model, but I’m also not interested in signing everything away to a major publisher—so this option is very attractive to me as a self-published composer. On a more conceptual level, however, this is also big news because it’s the first time (that I’m aware of) that a major distributor has recognized the growing strength of self-published composers in our industry and is willing to allow the individual to jump into the marketplace. I’ll be very interested to hear any other responses or questions about this and especially any reactions from composers who are using the service. The comments section is yours for the taking.

NewMusicBox provides a space for those engaged with new music to communicate their experiences and ideas in their own words. Articles and commentary posted here reflect the viewpoints of their individual authors; their appearance on NewMusicBox does not imply endorsement by New Music USA.

17 thoughts on “They’re Finally Catching On

  1. J. M. Gerraughty

    This looks like a great site, but I still want to know if Pepper will edit my scores before putting them up on my site (aka, into a “house style”), or will they simply distribute from PDFs that I send them.

    I definitely think that this is the future of music publishing. Imagine if Boosey did something like this!!!

    1. Anthony Cornicello

      I agree that this is a great idea, but it’s more like Amazon than a publisher. You retain rights and royalties, and that means you’d have to do the editing. The charge for editing would be much, much higher than the fees they require.

    2. Rick Hirsch

      Pepper takes your PDFs as is, doing no editing or reformatting whatsoever. I believe they will send you a print sample upon request to make sure you are satisfied with potential output.

      Additionally, they issue detailed sales reports and royalty checks every month.

      In a nutshell, MyScore is basically CD Baby for composers wishing to DIY distribute their printed works.

      One final note: I still think the good folks at Pepper are working their way through the wishlist of features needd to make this a really fantastic service. As a start, though, I think it is a great move in the right direction.

      1. Rob Deemer

        Thanks, Rick – I laughed when I saw it was for your page that Ian sent me the link (it’s a small, small world!)

        Have you been happy with the quality of their printing/binding?

  2. Garrett Shatzer

    I’m not sure this would be of much use unless ensembles/performers start frequenting the Pepper page. Self-advertising is 99% of the self-publishing business IMHO, so *that* is what I’d like a service to do.

  3. Ted King-Smith

    I saw that ad as well and was a little pessimistic (as I am about most Facebook ads) but I’m glad to hear that it’s very promising! I would also be curious as to what materials the print on (i.e. paper weight and color, binding, etc.) and whether or not the composer can specify. Perhaps this idea is still a ‘win’ for Pepper as the publicizing is now done by the composer (as Garrett mentioned), giving them more resources to print and distribute. However, now we as composers have an opportunity to promote out music without having to set aside time to also be a publisher and still have some control over the material product. This is indeed very exciting and I hope that more publishers will move in this direction!

  4. Melissa Dunphy

    Hrmm. I guess there might come a day in the future when it’s too much trouble for me to distribute my own pdf’s, but that day has (sadly) not yet arrived. I realized early on in self-publishing that the majority of ensembles I write for prefer digital delivery. I don’t think I’ve had a single print order in the last two years (not that I’m inundated with sheet music orders, but still). It’s become a given when I am commissioned that I will deliver pdf’s rather than physical parts – I’ve had a bunch of commissions this year, and for all of them, digital delivery was so de rigueur, it wasn’t even discussed.

    Right now, when I get an order, I actually send the pdf(s) out personally. I don’t mind doing this because it also quite often means a more personal connection to whoever might be buying my music. I have been considering moving my sheet music distribution over to Bandcamp, where I currently sell/stream/give away recordings, but it’s just not worth it yet. One day … hopefully …

  5. David Froom

    Interesting, this conversation and article. Thanks, Rob, for starting it going.

    To Anthony Cornicello, I don’t know of any publishers who do editing (without a charge-back), except for their very biggest names.

    I like Pepper. They are a very fine store and internet store front. They have long shown a strong commitment to having music by living composers in their stock. Their plan sounds interesting.

    So what’s the differences among self-publishing, Pepper (or Subito), ACA (for BMI composers only), and a traditional publisher?

    For self-publishers, you do all the printing, binding, advertising, soliciting orders, and filling orders. You have to be the one directly to bill and collect payment. You keep all your royalties (automatically with BMI, or if you establish a publishing company with ASCAP). When you die, someone else needs to take over or the music disappears. The music looks as good as you make it look.

    Subito and Pepper are versions of the same thing, with slightly different models. They give you a webpage, they do the printing and binding and shipping, they collect the money and distribute your share. In exchange, you keep a higher percentage than you would with a traditional publisher. It isn’t clear if this is AFTER printing/binding/mailing or before. If it is after, the percentage might not be that much bigger? When you die, someone else needs to continue to pay the annual fee, or take over self-publishing, or the music disappears. The music looks as good as you make it look, because their printing and binding are good. There is no publisher’s cover.

    Traditional publishers take your copyright, plus half the performance royalties. They usually supply little more than Pepper/Subito do in terms of advertising, though maybe it is a bit more, because of name recognition, plus some little bit of promotion. They can drop you at any time, and charge you a fee to get your music back. They can go out of business. They can keep your music in limbo, unavailable. They might not always fill orders quickly. After you die, it is up to them whether they keep you or drop you. If they drop you, the music becomes unavailable unless your heirs buy it back from them. The music might look good, but sometimes it doesn’t.

    ACA is in a middle ground. You have to apply for membership. They act like a publisher, in that they do some promotion. They also take 50% of performance royalties. They charge $100 dues a year, and are run by the members. They fill orders quickly (at least they do now, and for the past half-dozen years). Composers get their own pages on the website ( They pay royalties somewhere between a traditional publisher and Pepper, and royalties are set to be based on the sales price. They do NOT take the copyright, and you can get your music back by resigning at any time. You can take individual pieces out and give them to traditional publishers (but not to self-publish). They take your whole active catalog. They put on some concerts. All members music is archived permanently in the Special Collections of the University or Maryland’s Performing Arts library. They don’t drop you unless you stop paying dues. They also have a plan (for a one-time cost) to keep your music and continue to sell it after you die, with royalties to designated heirs. The music is printed and bound nicely, with professional-looking covers, but it really looks as good as you make it look.

    I think it is great that Pepper is getting into this. If anyone can do it well, it would be them. They provide a particular niche for those who want and need it. They aren’t for everyone. None of the options is. I wish them great success, and if I ever tire of ACA (I’m a member and on their board), I’ll probably look to Pepper first.

    1. Jeremy Beck

      David, thank you for some excellent and useful thoughts on this topic. One very important consideration you’ve raised has to do with what happens to a composer’s music after the person’s death. As a composer and attorney practicing in this area, I’ve observed first hand that it is critical for composers to consider their options with regard to what happens to their catalogue, manuscripts, copyrights, recordings, etc., and to incorporate their decisions into their estate documents. A composer’s heirs may have no idea what to do with one’s work – it is best to make things as easy as one can for them with thoughtful, advance planning.

      Best wishes to all,


  6. Mark Winges

    Another aspect of all this is that a composer doesn’t have to choose a single business model. I’ve got some easier choral pieces (arrangements of shape-note tunes, unison treble voice music) that fit quite well with the traditional music model. Those choral specialist publishers send out packets and show up at places where I can’t. Or where it isn’t worth my while to show up since I only have a few pieces like that. I’m happy to have them do all that work (including printing, mailing and invoicing) and take my 10%. I view it as partially promotional.

    I have quite a few things with Subito (vocal & instrumental), and when I do some targeted publicity, there are some sales. There are links to the Subito pages in my website. Again, I feel it’s worth my while to have them take care of printing and order fulfillment. Other things are going to be really low-demand, and I’ve done the .pdf directly for those things.
    So I think the mix ‘n match approach is a real positive, and I’m very heartened that Pepper has jumped into this area.

  7. Hans van Mol

    The other nice thing (that wasn’t mentioned in the article) is that if you have a publication that gets picked up by a major publisher, you don’t lose it with MyScore. Pepper lets you link any of your titles carried by major publishers along with the items you upload on the same page! I think MyScore is a great start for those doing self-publishing, or even those trying to break into selling their own works.

  8. Pingback: 2012: The Year of the Carlton? Not really… | Carlton L. Winston

  9. Mike

    Thanks for the informative article. As a composer myself, the one issue I see with the JW Pepper arrangement is one still has to promote oneself. It’s not so hard making PDF’s available through a store on a website – the trick is getting people interested. Pepper does no promotions at all, so the composer is still left to try to promote the work. To me this is the hardest part.

    Plus, it costs a pretty penny to get started and still $25/year to maintain. You’ve got to make a lot of sales to make up for this – again going back to the promotion.

    Finally, their are tons of composers on Pepper’s website. I don’t think it would be easy for would-be buyers to find me without outside promotions. Perusing their website did not give me a good feel for how I could differentiate myself, unless someone did a direct search for a title I wrote.

    I think the “big guy” totally comes out on top here, again–Pepper assumes absolutely no risk and in fact makes money from the composer every year. That’s a “benefit” disguised as a money-making scheme for Pepper. And Pepper’s cut is still disproportionately high – even iTunes only charges 20%, and they also charge artists to host their music on iTunes. For the digital distribution Pepper takes a lot (50%); for print it starts to be understandable but still they take 75% so it’s a lot. Yes, it’s more generous than traditional print royalties, but let’s not forget they promote the works in that case.



  10. Ben

    Is anyone actually making any money with this program? I saw that JW pepper now gives 50% for digital sales but pretty much every piece I have ever played in an ensemble or with my ensemble is published from a big publisher.

    Is there actually a chance of selling anything or is this just a way for JW pepper to make $100 + 25/year off of amature composers?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Conversation and respectful debate is vital to the NewMusicBox community. However, please remember to keep comments constructive and on-topic. Avoid personal attacks and defamatory language. We reserve the right to remove any comment that the community reports as abusive or that the staff determines is inappropriate.