# Good Starting Music Publishing Libraries



## JaredJn (Nov 18, 2011)

Hey. I'm sure this question probably exists somewhere on this forum but I can't find Exactly what I' looking for so I'm going to ask it!!

What are some good Music Publishing Libraries that are good to start out with. I've done some research and the big ones like KillerTracks and APMmusic sound like they would laugh at me if I dare tried to compete, yet I haven't really called and tried.

I want to start out with a company that I can at least begin to place cues into and slowly build as my time and compositions increase. I didn't spend thousands of dollars on my studio for NOTHING!!!

Thanks!


----------



## vlado hudec (Nov 22, 2011)

Hi,

my advice is, at first do some research, check some library music companies on internet and listen the music which they have there and consider, if your music is at least at the same level. There are tons of companies on internet, some are cheap with pretty crapy music, some are very good, well known companies with top quality music.

Then send your music to every company and wait, whether someone will contact you. 

Someone offer non exclusive deal, other exclusive deal, it is up to you, which you choose.

V


----------



## Conor (Dec 3, 2011)

I'm just starting to look into this as well. I think it would help inspire me to get off my arse and write more in between paying gigs. 

So far every "open submissions" type site I've found has been absolute junk, with bad deals and/or no audience. Seems like the thing to do is aim higher, put together a full CD's worth of material and start making phone calls.

If anyone has library recommendations, I'd also be interested in knowing a good one that does both music and sound effects. Got a bunch of field recordings sitting around gathering virtual dust.


----------



## gsilbers (Dec 3, 2011)

most libraries are very small companies with few connections.

maybe this will help


http://www.musiclibraryreport.com/


----------



## midphase (Dec 3, 2011)

JaredJn @ Fri Nov 18 said:


> I didn't spend thousands of dollars on my studio for NOTHING!!!



Actually you probably did...but that's not something that you really want to hear right now. Focus on the fact that you can enjoy writing music in your place utilizing some pretty amazing tools...that's not nothing!


----------



## Aaron Sapp (Dec 3, 2011)

So you recently purchased some gear and want to compete in one of the toughest markets in the music industry?


----------



## Daryl (Dec 4, 2011)

JaredJn @ Fri Nov 18 said:


> What are some good Music Publishing Libraries that are good to start out with. I've done some research and the big ones like KillerTracks and APMmusic sound like they would laugh at me if I dare tried to compete, yet I haven't really called and tried.


I doubt that they'd laugh. It is more likely that your CD/email would go straight in the trash and you'd never hear from them. Nothing to stop you trying though.



JaredJn @ Fri Nov 18 said:


> I want to start out with a company that I can at least begin to place cues into and slowly build as my time and compositions increase. I didn't spend thousands of dollars on my studio for NOTHING!!!


The trouble with the "smaller, easier to get started with companies", is that they have no distribution network. You will easily find someone to accept your music, but there is no guarantee that you will ever earn anything from it. There have been countless posts on this forum where people have wondered if anyone ever earns anything from library music, so you are not alone in your wishes. However, you must be aware that it is a very aggressive market, and it is just as difficult to be financially successful working in library, as it is in film or TV.

The best advice I can give, is that you need to make as many contacts as you can in all aspects of the industry. It is easier to get into library when you have some sort of track record elsewhere.

D


----------



## rgames (Dec 4, 2011)

gsilbers @ Sun Dec 04 said:


> maybe this will help
> 
> 
> http://www.musiclibraryreport.com/



That's the place to go to find out what libraries exist but I've never found the discussions to be particularly illuminating.

I started seriously doing library music 2-3 years ago. I have found that there are two secrets to make it profitable:

1. Quantity
2. Luck

Note the absence of "quality" among the considerations.

In my experience, your best bet is to avoid the massive meat market sites (Audiosparx, Productiontrax, etc.) and try to get in with a library that is more, how do I say this, refined? Many of those sites seem to make a lot of money by driving huge numbers of people to their sites and selling advertising. They also make money on the composers by charging for "featured track" status or something like that. Having said that, there are supposedly composers who make decent money there. I ain't one of them 

Also, I think having a track record doesn't matter. The library cares only about your demo. They're not looking for you to tell them what's in demand - they already have that figured out. Also, I've found that the better libraries prefer to work with you on collections of tracks, not just single tracks.

So, bottom line, there are basically three tiers of libraries:

1. Massive meat market (Audiosparx, Productiontrax, etc.)
2. Smaller meat market (Pump, maybe Crucial)
3. Real libraries (those that pay up front and/or have deep networks)

Skip #1. Start with #2 and try to get into #3. Take a look at cue sheets from your PRO and see who is listed as the publisher for the various spots. I've never seen any of the massive meat market sites listed. However, there's a handful of names that appear on a *very* regular basis. Do the math 

Also, I think it helps to get to know someone who works in using (not writing) music for the media. Then you get a perspective on how those folks use music, what they're looking for, etc. My guess is that most of the guys who are successful doing library music have that network in place.

Finally, and here's the real kicker: if you write music that you enjoy, odds are it'll never sell with the libraries. Let's face it, people don't listen to ad music on their mp3 players.

rgames


----------



## JaredJn (Dec 4, 2011)

midphase @ Sun Dec 04 said:


> JaredJn @ Fri Nov 18 said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't spend thousands of dollars on my studio for NOTHING!!!
> ...



TRUE!!


----------



## Daryl (Dec 4, 2011)

rgames @ Sun Dec 04 said:


> gsilbers @ Sun Dec 04 said:
> 
> 
> > maybe this will help
> ...


Hmmmm. No wonder you're not successful, with that attitude. :roll: 

D


----------



## rgames (Dec 4, 2011)

Daryl @ Sun Dec 04 said:


> Hmmmm. No wonder you're not successful, with that attitude. :roll:
> 
> D



Why do you presume I'm not successful?

rgames


----------



## Daryl (Dec 4, 2011)

rgames @ Sun Dec 04 said:


> Daryl @ Sun Dec 04 said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmmm. No wonder you're not successful, with that attitude. :roll:
> ...


Because you said you weren't making any money. Simple.

D


----------



## rgames (Dec 4, 2011)

Daryl @ Sun Dec 04 said:


> rgames @ Sun Dec 04 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl @ Sun Dec 04 said:
> ...


Where?


----------



## midphase (Dec 4, 2011)

Daryl @ Sun Dec 04 said:


> Note the absence of "quality" among the considerations.


Hmmmm. No wonder you're not successful, with that attitude. :roll: 

D[/quote]


Actually I think Richard is pretty much spot on. Most music library placement is on reality TV and the occasional local/regional ad. Have you heard the music on those things? Is the word "quality" the first thing that pops into your head?

If we could all collectively pull our heads out of our asses every once in a while, this would be a much better and more manageable industry.

Note that I'm not saying that quality doesn't matter. There is a place and time for it, and even a handful of music libraries which make it their priority. However they are just a handful, and they will need to pay up-front fees to their composers because quality = time.


----------



## Daryl (Dec 4, 2011)

> midphase @ Sun Dec 04 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl @ Sun Dec 04 said:
> ...


Except that Richard implied that quality doesn't matter. I think that this is a terrible attitude, and if it was coming from someone who had a successful library career, I would pay some attention to it. But as it isn't, I just think that it's sour grapes. :twisted: 

I agree that there is plenty of bad music on TV, Some of it is library, but a lot of it also has a "named" composer, so the only time that it is bound to be pretty bad is when the production company was forced to use a company like AudioNetworX for all their music. However there is a world of other stuff out there, and to generalise all library music as of low quality is rather silly, IMO.

In the end though I don't care, because I am making a good living. I don't have silly deadlines to meet. I can hire musicians to play my low quality music, and can look forward to a nice pension, when I decide not to write any more. The more people who think that any old cr*p will do for library, or that there is no money to be made, the happier I will be, because it means that there will be much more money for me. :wink: 

D


----------



## Daryl (Dec 4, 2011)

rgames @ Sun Dec 04 said:


> Daryl @ Sun Dec 04 said:
> 
> 
> > rgames @ Sun Dec 04 said:
> ...


You siad:

"Having said that, there are supposedly composers who make decent money there. I ain't one of them."

Was that not you? Maybe it was some dodgy library type-alike. :lol: 

D


----------



## Mike Greene (Dec 4, 2011)

midphase @ Sun Dec 04 said:


> Actually I think Richard is pretty much spot on. Most music library placement is on reality TV and the occasional local/regional ad. Have you heard the music on those things? Is the word "quality" the first thing that pops into your head?


Not to sound defensive, because I truly take no offense at this, but reality TV music is better than you might think. Granted, it can often be pretty simple, production-wise. But take a deeper listen and you'll see that it's a lot like pop music, where hits are not about who has the biggest orchestra, but rather who can write the catchiest tune.

Shows like Oprah have (or rather, _had_) literally tens of thousands of tracks in their library. Yet the vast majority would never get a single play, because why would a segment producer use a lousy track when there are so many better ones to choose from? For this reason, there will be that handful of cues that get used all the time. Listen to those tracks. Then try and write a better one. Tain't easy.

The proof's in the pudding. The tracks you'll actually hear have some pretty cool guitar riffs, or pretty catchy dance beats. (I'm serious. Listen with a critical ear and you're going to be surprised.) Even with a simple piano over string bed cue, there are certain cues (the ones that get used) that are just "better." Sure, they might sound simple, but so does "Let It Be." (And yes, I *did* just compare what I do to the Beattles! :mrgreen: )

Again, I'm not the least bit offended if anyone thinks library tracks suck. But it's not the clearinghouse for bad music that many people might think it is. Yes, some of the bloat libraries will *take* any bad track you send them. But those tracks aren't going to get any placements. Those days ended a decade ago.


----------



## rgames (Dec 4, 2011)

Daryl @ Sun Dec 04 said:


> You siad:
> 
> "Having said that, there are supposedly composers who make decent money there. I ain't one of them."
> 
> ...


Maybe you're having a bad day, Daryl, but I get the impression that you didn't catch much of what I wrote. So let me explain.

First, from your quote above, the key word is "there" in the context of that paragraph, which was about the meat market libraries - I don't make much money off the massive meat market libraries. I do make some decent money from other libraries, though. That was the whole point of my post: avoid the meat markets.

Second, nobody said all library music is poor quality. I simply said it's not a major factor in determining success. I didn't even define what "quality" means - the point is that you can define it however you want and you'll find someone making money with music that defies that definition of quality. It's all over the place.

I stand by my assertion that for someone looking to get into music libraries, his time is better spent writing a *lot* of tracks rather than fewer tracks that he considers higher quality. Or get lucky and start dating the daughter of a major library owner.

Maybe there's a small correlation between library success and quality (however you define that) but I contend that there's a *much* larger correlation with quantity of tracks and whom you know.

Clearer now?

rgames


----------



## José Herring (Dec 4, 2011)

Daryl @ Sun Dec 04 said:


> rgames @ Sun Dec 04 said:
> 
> 
> > gsilbers @ Sun Dec 04 said:
> ...



Anybody who doesn't think that production quality is job one in this field is missing it big time. Look at who's doing trailer and music library work these days. You have Nick P., TJ, John Graham, Craig Sharmat, Aaron, Troels, I mean c'mon guys. These guys are tops. I've spent the better part of the last 5 years trying to get to where I can produce music like they do with computers.


----------



## Daryl (Dec 4, 2011)

rgames @ Sun Dec 04 said:


> [Second, nobody said all library music is poor quality. I simply said it's not a major factor in determining success. I didn't even define what "quality" means - the point is that you can define it however you want and you'll find someone making money with music that defies that definition of quality. It's all over the place.
> 
> I stand by my assertion that for someone looking to get into music libraries, his time is better spent writing a *lot* of tracks rather than fewer tracks that he considers higher quality. Or get lucky and start dating the daughter of a major library owner.
> 
> ...



I just disagree that quality is not a major factor.

When you submit lower quality music, it's mostly the cheap libraries that would accept it. Most of the composers who submit stuff to these kinds of libraries have very little talent and virtually no ability. Therefore there are thousands upon thousands of low quality tracks to choose from. So for individual composers, there is very little chance of making a living, because it is very unlikely that your particular cr*ppy tracks will be chosen.

However, if you aim for the upper end off the market, it is very much less crowded. Most people can't write (and produce) to this standard, so fewer composer will be in this bracket. The licence fees also tend to be higher, because the programmes using this sort of music tend to be of better quality and higher budget. Therefore in this bracket it is possible to make a good living writing for library.

This is why I say that trying to pretend that quality doesn't matter is a red herring, because whilst I wouldn't disagree that there is a lot of bad music out there, there is much, much more that doesn't ever get used (and it's not worse, it's equally bad, IMO), whereas I don't think I've ever written a track that didn't make money.

D


----------



## bigdog (Dec 4, 2011)

If one wants to make money at it, quality is indeed a major factor, along with everything else!


----------



## Conor (Dec 4, 2011)

rgames @ Sun Dec 04 said:


> 1. Massive meat market (Audiosparx, Productiontrax, etc.)
> 2. Smaller meat market (Pump, maybe Crucial)
> 3. Real libraries (those that pay up front and/or have deep networks)
> 
> Skip #1. Start with #2 and try to get into #3. Take a look at cue sheets from your PRO and see who is listed as the publisher for the various spots. I've never seen any of the massive meat market sites listed. However, there's a handful of names that appear on a *very* regular basis. Do the math



I thought Pump was considered the pits. Certainly the commenters on MLR seem to think so.

Also: If quality doesn't really matter, and experience doesn't really matter, why on earth would a newbie cut his teeth on #1 or #2 rather than going straight to the top? :roll:

Also: where would one find such cue sheets? 0oD


----------



## rgames (Dec 4, 2011)

CobraTrumpet @ Sun Dec 04 said:


> I thought Pump was considered the pits. Certainly the commenters on MLR seem to think so.
> 
> Also: If quality doesn't really matter, and experience doesn't really matter, why on earth would a newbie cut his teeth on #1 or #2 rather than going straight to the top? :roll:
> 
> Also: where would one find such cue sheets? 0oD



I've had decent success with Pump - they generate a *lot* of smaller placements. I've only had a couple "sizable" placements with them (over $1k license fee) but they make up for it in quantity. Plus, they do a decent job getting placements that generate royalties. Their submission process is pretty easy, so it's worth the time.

Not sure what you're getting at on the quality discussion - I agree that #1 is mostly a waste of time. Experience doesn't matter: the libraries only care if you have the type of music they're looking for. If you do, they don't care how long you've been doing library music. In fact, non-exclusives probably prefer that you be un-experienced because odds are there aren't other libraries that already have your tracks.

Regarding cue sheets, I can access them online (I'm with ASCAP). I've only looked at the sheets I'm on - I'm not sure if you can just look up cue sheets you're not on...

rgames


----------



## musicformedia (Dec 4, 2011)

I write music full time for libraries and earn 100% of my income from it. 

Being honest, nobody will tell you the best libraries to sell music on - they don't want to give their secret to good income away, so you'll have to find them yourself. Do look at music library report - also look at http://www.howtolicenseyourmusic.com/ - Aaron over there sells a music licensing directory of music supervisors and libraries.

The entire thing is trial and error. What might work for some composers, might not work for others. Some libraries work great for some composers, but I have had no success with them and vice versa.

What I would say is:

- Write music you are comfortable with first, then expand further later.
- Try the non-exclusive music libraries first, then go to exclusive once you are happy with what happens and what to expect etc.
- Don't expect to make money straight away. Its a long term investment of time and patience. Your income will grow over time as your quantity and quality of tracks increase.

With 50 tracks I made approx $5k in my first year with a couple of non-exclusive libraries - that should give you an idea of what to expect. I'm now with an exclusive library and happy with the income I get.

Also, http://www.pumpaudio.com (www.pumpaudio.com) are ok - their submission process is the worst in the business I have ever come across though. In both my two submissions to them it took over 1 and 1/2 years to get my music with them. About 6- 12 months for them to review your music and up to 6 months for your music to then be added to their system.

I am starting up my own non exclusive library myself too specialising only in audio for games and apps - http://www.audioforapps.net. Feel free to contact me through there to apply to join if you feel you have any good tracks that would work in games/apps.


----------



## Conor (Dec 4, 2011)

@rgames,
I was just pointing out that you seemed to be painting a picture where quality/experience don't count, all that matters is quantity/persistence/luck. If that were 100% true, there'd be little point in being humble and looking for an "entry-level" library... even a complete newbie might as well shoot for the stars, throw tracks at the "real" libraries and see what sticks!

(Mostly I was just being a smart-ass.)

@musicformedia,
Thanks for the link! For the past few years I've been working almost exclusively on games (many of them mobile games), both freelance and in-house... so that's right up my alley and I'll definitely check it out.


----------



## rgames (Dec 4, 2011)

musicformedia @ Sun Dec 04 said:


> In both my two submissions to them it took over 1 and 1/2 years to get my music with them. About 6- 12 months for them to review your music and up to 6 months for your music to then be added to their system.


Yeah, they take forever. They put some tracks into an "awaiting review" status that never seems to change. I've had tracks "awaiting review" for three years...

Also, I could never figure out if they want alt versions. Sometimes they accept all the main versions and reject all the alt versions, sometimes they accept them all. I guess it depends on who's doing the reviews...

rgames


----------



## gsilbers (Dec 4, 2011)

CobraTrumpet @ Sun Dec 04 said:


> @rgames,
> I was just pointing out that you seemed to be painting a picture where quality/experience don't count, all that matters is quantity/persistence/luck. If that were 100% true, there'd be little point in being humble and looking for an "entry-level" library... even a complete newbie might as well shoot for the stars, throw tracks at the "real" libraries and see what sticks!
> 
> (Mostly I was just being a smart-ass.)
> ...



youd be surprise!


ever seen a reality show from start to finish?. 

and then stay tune for another one. ?

then that there was about 200 songs from different library music companies that you heard. 

now, again.. have you REALLY heard those tracks in reality shows. maybe check out cable network reality tv shows. REALLY pay attention to the music. 
some track , yes , are cool .. but a lot of them are just noise fillers... stuff to help on the mix and help out on that thing that happens on screen .. whats it called... wait.. hmmm oh yes.. NOTHING :mrgreen: 
aka: reality drama and odd spaces. :mrgreen: 


then there is music libraries that do not tailor to reality shows but try song placements on movies and tv. which again, w/o good connections then whatever. 
big music companies have a string hold on placing their artists 1st.


----------



## musicformedia (Dec 5, 2011)

> Yeah, they take forever. They put some tracks into an "awaiting review" status that never seems to change. I've had tracks "awaiting review" for three years...



You should email them to follow up. After I emailed them, a few weeks later mine moved out of awaiting review status. If they're still in awaiting review, they're probably not live in their library yet.


----------



## Markus S (Dec 5, 2011)

Personally I find the problem with the license music market a completely other one. I am convinced with quality and "adapted product" you can make a living from it. But it is more a question of your personality, I think. For me it is extremely difficult to write music, without knowing what I am writing for. As soon as a client speaks to me about his project, I start to hear the music, the longer and precisely he speaks the clearer it gets. With the years I found the number of reworks drastically reduced (even though you never know), at some point you just "feel" the client and the project.

When I sit down and want to write random music library tracks, well, there is nothing, silence, nada. So I'd start here : Can you write all day long, "commercial" music, easily adapted to image without having any idea where it will land? Can you make music by yourself that fits 50 different situations, you don't even imagine now? Is it enough inspiration for you to write for "hypothetical" projects? If so : rock and roll, there is no reason you wouldn't succeed!


----------



## Daryl (Dec 5, 2011)

Markus S @ Mon Dec 05 said:


> When I sit down and want to write random music library tracks, well, there is nothing, silence, nada. So I'd start here : Can you write all day long, "commercial" music, easily adapted to image without having any idea where it will land? Can you make music by yourself that fits 50 different situations, you don't even imagine now? Is it enough inspiration for you to write for "hypothetical" projects? If so : rock and roll, there is no reason you wouldn't succeed!



I would agree with you, and this is why I never sit down and write random tracks. I have a proper overall brief for the album, and then a track by track brief, often with a suggested structure. Sometimes I even get a little bit of film to look at before I start.

There is nothing random about running a business, and it's no accident that the people who are most successful at writing library music approach it as a business. That's not to say that you can't write good music; in fact there are possibly more opportunities to do this in library than when writing for film or TV, but you have to keep the end product in mind at all times.

D


----------



## musicformedia (Dec 5, 2011)

Markus S @ Mon Dec 05 said:


> Personally I find the problem with the license music market a completely other one. I am convinced with quality and "adapted product" you can make a living from it. But it is more a question of your personality, I think. For me it is extremely difficult to write music, without knowing what I am writing for. As soon as a client speaks to me about his project, I start to heat the music I will write, the longer and precisely he speaks the clearer it gets. With the years I found the number of reworks drastically reduced (even though you never know), at some point you just "feel" the client and the project.
> 
> When I sit down and want to write random music library tracks, well, there is nothing, silence, nada. So I'd start here : Can you write all day long, "commercial" music, easily adapted to image without having any idea where it will land? Can you make music by yourself that fits 50 different situations, you don't even imagine now? Is it enough inspiration for you to write for "hypothetical" projects? If so : rock and roll, there is no reason you wouldn't succeed!



Thats why people sometimes think that library music sounds crap. Its not like normal music. The more uses it can have, the better.

You write a jazz flute concerto, it probably won't get licensed once.
You write a sad piano track, it will get licensed a lot.

Therefore, licensing music is sometimes a bit more vague and general that other music.

Here is an example of a popular track on one stock music site:
http://audiojungle.net/item/live-my-life/224500

Its not really music you'll sit down and listen to normally, but it works. It can be used for hundreds of different things. It doesnt change key, it stays on the same emotion throughout, the instrumentation doesnt vary too much.

I know what you're saying though. When I write music to a video, that music flows out of me a lot quicker. Writing music for libraries is fun though - you get to write what you want, when you want. Theres no deadlines, you write music you like and get to write in lots of styles. The real fun is watching your sales come in as you're sitting in the cinema, or off for a meal with your girlfriend


----------



## rgames (Dec 5, 2011)

musicformedia @ Mon Dec 05 said:


> Its not really music you'll sit down and listen to normally, but it works. ... It doesnt change key, it stays on the same emotion throughout, the instrumentation doesnt vary too much.


That's the part I didn't really get until I had been doing library music for a year or so. It's true - if you try to write something like concert music where the mood shifts, tempo shifts, key shifts, etc. then you're (probably) going to have a hard time selling the track.

It's weird because most library placements are only a snippet of a track, so it actually doesn't matter how that snippet fits in the context of the rest of the piece. However, music supers don't want to listen to an entire track, so they want a quick indication of what the mood is, what the key is, what the tempo is, etc. and whether it kind-of sounds like what they want. If so, they can search through the rest of the track to see if it gets closer to what they're looking for. If the track moves far away from what they hear in the first few bars, odds are they'll pass it by.

Music to a library composer is kind of like science to an engineer: you're not pushing the boundaries, you're using what already exists to create something under practical constraints.

It still takes skill to do that. It's just a different skill set than, say, writing to film or writing concert music. Related, but different.

rgames


----------



## midphase (Dec 5, 2011)

musicformedia @ Mon Dec 05 said:


> Writing music for libraries is fun though - you get to write what you want, when you want. Theres no deadlines, you write music you like and get to write in lots of styles. The real fun is watching your sales come in as you're sitting in the cinema, or off for a meal with your girlfriend



I think this is a misrepresentation of the craft and I wouldn't describe doing library music in such terms. Let's be realistic and call it for what it really is:

- It's not really fun if you prefer to score to picture. Some of us are in it for more than just writing music for the sake of music. We want to be part of a larger narrative and be guided by inspired directors with innovative visions.

- You don't get to write what you want. You get to write cues which have to fit some pretty strict criteria if you're planning on making any money off of them.

- There are absolutely deadlines. Whether they are self imposed or tied to the release of a new set of tracks, deadlines are very real. I also don't see why deadlines are viewed as negatives, they can be extremely helpful in motivating a composer and help in "letting go" of a track instead of getting trapped into tweaking hell for months on end.

- I suppose if you enjoy writing in the typical styles that get picked up from music libraries most often, then I suppose you get to write music you like. If you despise writing trailer-like music or music beds which lend themselves perfectly to the new Levitra ad, or Ikea-feelgood tracks...then you'll be pretty miserable.

- The "real fun" is watching sales come in? You make it sound as if making money off of library music is an unintended bonus. Are you kidding? You just busted your ass off for months on end and invested personal funds into your gear and software. You wrote dozens if not hundreds of tracks out of which the majority have not been picked up for whatever reason. When you do get that check it's not "real fun", it's your goddam way to continue existing as a professional composer!


----------



## RiffWraith (Dec 5, 2011)

Markus S @ Mon Dec 05 said:


> Personally I find the problem with the license music market a completely other one. I am convinced with quality and "adapted product" you can make a living from it. But it is more a question of your personality, I think. For me it is extremely difficult to write music, without knowing what I am writing for. As soon as a client speaks to me about his project, I start to hear the music, the longer and precisely he speaks the clearer it gets. With the years I found the number of reworks drastically reduced (even though you never know), at some point you just "feel" the client and the project.
> 
> When I sit down and want to write random music library tracks, well, there is nothing, silence, nada. So I'd start here : Can you write all day long, "commercial" music, easily adapted to image without having any idea where it will land? Can you make music by yourself that fits 50 different situations, you don't even imagine now? Is it enough inspiration for you to write for "hypothetical" projects? If so : rock and roll, there is no reason you wouldn't succeed!



Wow. Interesting. For me, it is extremely easy to just sit down and write, w/o knowing what it will be for. Same way I pick up my guitar, and just go - I open my template, and just go. I just let it fllow, and without the restrictions of having to scale back the music to allow for dialogue, and time constraints, etc., I just write. If I put my mind to it and have nothing else pending, I can easily write 30 lib tracks in 20 days. Finished, produced, ready to go. All without having any clue what the msuic will be used for.

Now, that is not nearly as fun nor as gratifying as scoring to picture, but it's alot less work, and there isn't as much thought that needs go into it.

And THAT is a BIG reason why music lib music is never as good as music written to picture. 

Cheers.


----------



## musicformedia (Dec 5, 2011)

midphase @ Tue Dec 06 said:


> musicformedia @ Mon Dec 05 said:
> 
> 
> > Writing music for libraries is fun though - you get to write what you want, when you want. Theres no deadlines, you write music you like and get to write in lots of styles. The real fun is watching your sales come in as you're sitting in the cinema, or off for a meal with your girlfriend
> ...



Apologies I didn't mean to offend you, just sharing my opinion. You are correct, it depends completely on what you enjoy doing - if you don't like writing certain types of music that sells well in music libraries, then you won't enjoy it. 

What I meant by "the real fun", was that if you manage to write that elusive good track that sells well, you get rewarded with good sales. I find it fun to watch my sales for new tracks that I write, to see if they're being purchased by people, or if they're just sitting there not earning anything. One track (not mine) on a music library am I with has made $35k so far in sales (50% goes to the composer) and its about 2-3 years old. I like the fact that there is no ceiling as to how much you could earn from your music in the licensing business - thats the real fun - the unpredictability of it.

I don't have kids or a mortgage, so I currently find it fun - I don't think it would be as much fun when I have both of the above.

Apologies once again - didn't mean to offend you


----------



## midphase (Dec 5, 2011)

I wasn't offended...no apologies necessary. 

I wanted to merely point out that writing for libraries for a living is hard work with a payoff which might or might not ever be adequate for all the work put in.

Ironically, I tend to view most music library work as a good outlet for non-pro composers (i.e. people with other primary forms of income). For those people, composing tracks on their off time that might actually generate some extra money is definitely a bonus which is also a lot of fun.


----------



## musicformedia (Dec 5, 2011)

midphase @ Tue Dec 06 said:


> I wasn't offended...no apologies necessary.
> 
> I wanted to merely point out that writing for libraries for a living is hard work with a payoff which might or might not ever be adequate for all the work put in.
> 
> Ironically, I tend to view most music library work as a good outlet for non-pro composers (i.e. people with other primary forms of income). For those people, composing tracks on their off time that might actually generate some extra money is definitely a bonus which is also a lot of fun.



Yup agree completely. If you are full time employed at something else and enjoy composing as a hobby you will especially find it fun and more enjoyable than as a full time job.


----------



## rgames (Dec 5, 2011)

musicformedia @ Mon Dec 05 said:


> One track (not mine) on a music library am I with has made $35k so far in sales (50% goes to the composer) and its about 2-3 years old.


Another thing I've noticed in some mid-tier (and low-tier) libraries is that there are a few tracks that get a few licenses, then get promoted a bit more, then get more licenses, then get promoted more, etc.

So there's kind of a snowball effect that can happen if you get a few decent sales in a relatively short period of time. Of course, that requires that people actually hear your music: a lot of those libraries have a "rating" system that they use to prioritize search results. If you get on their buddy list, you can start climbing that ladder, and the snowball effect can happen.

That's part of the reason why a lot of great tracks sit there and do nothing while some less-great tracks make a bunch of money.

rgames


----------



## Daryl (Dec 6, 2011)

midphase @ Mon Dec 05 said:


> Ironically, I tend to view most music library work as a good outlet for non-pro composers (i.e. people with other primary forms of income). For those people, composing tracks on their off time that might actually generate some extra money is definitely a bonus which is also a lot of fun.


I think if you're talking about the arse end of the industry, you're probably right. Doesn't affect me though. :wink: 

D


----------



## JaredJn (Dec 6, 2011)

Out of all of this I believe that "_*Good*_" and "*Bad*" music is all relative.

When someone is usually referring to: "Good" Music
-They are usually speaking about something on a higher level. 
-In terms of Higher level, they are speaking about things that are either more emotionally stimulating or psychologically technical.
-In terms of Emotional Stimulation or Psychological technicality, they are speaking about music with more of a progression, more harmony, more melody (if there isn't one.
(This list can technically keep on going...)

When someone is usually referring to: "Bad" Music
-They are usually speaking about something on a less intellectual or stimulating level.
-In terms of less stimulating or emotional, that means something with less Harmonic changes or something with a more static melodic line. Something "EASY" per-say. 
---This does not pertain to the ACTUALLY BAD music which is more on a technical stand point of wrong notes, *underdeveloped* sense of rhythm, and overall *underdeveloped* musicianship.


All of this can vary and change according to what you may feel your PERSONAL opinion of what GOOD music and BAD music is.
Some people may say Good music is simply music with a Good Groove, and thats all that may matter.
Others may feel that music is something that is a little more complex and stimulating, according to the person.

This all branches under the term *QUALITY*. Though quality could mean a plethora of things. It could mean compositional quality or mixing quality or orchestrational quality. Whatever it may be, I feel_ IN MY OPINION_, that if someone feels that they need a ii IV V and I to express themselves, then so be it. If someone feels they need more than that, that's fine as well. 

The big issue is what the MAJORITY of the general public want to listen to. A lot of Pop music today, is the structure and form that many people strive for; it's called Popular music for a reason. A lot of this is a simple I IV and V and if you are going for that particular market then that is most likely the form you'd have to follow.




DISCLAIMER: This is simply my personal opinion. And though, I am the type of person who needs more complexity in music, I still love to listen to a Good Ole' I IV V I here and there!


*Sorry for the long message everyone. :shock: * To sum it all up, I do believe my "Good Starting Publishing Libraries" question was somewhat answered :D


----------



## rgames (Dec 7, 2011)

JaredJn @ Tue Dec 06 said:


> Out of all of this I believe that "_*Good*_" and "*Bad*" music is all relative.



The point of that piece of the discussion was not to define what "good" means or what "bad" means.

The point was that you can define it however you want and you'll see people making money with both.

rgames


----------

