# Making music for libraries



## Tanuj Tiku (Jun 6, 2012)

I have been approached by a few libraries in the past but the offer was not great. Some of them wanted royalty-free music or just kept all the rights. Some of them did not have an up-front fee.

How does one approach the better music libraries? This is something I am completely unaware of. How does one end up writing music for libraries and what are the requirements as such?

Am I supposed to present a showreel where I have recorded music with an orchestra or do they accept sample based work?

I ask this because I love writing cinematic music but its of little use in India. I cant move to London or LA without any offers so I am exploring the prospects of writing for music libraries.

Any help will be greatly appreciated!


Best,

Tanuj.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 6, 2012)

The beauty of writing for libraries is that you don't have to move anywhere. :wink: 

Regarding how to get a gig, the best way is personal introduction. Failing that, a showreel and a credit list might help. However, there is no guarantee that they will even listen to your stuff. Sorry not to be of more help.

D


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jun 6, 2012)

Daryl,

That is exactly why I would love to write music for libraries. I am not sure how I could possibly meet someone in person. 

Well at this point, I dont even know who 'they' are! haha!

But, on a more serious note, I will research further and perhaps make a trip to London or LA to meet a few people. Show them some my work and hope for the best!

The standard is very high so I must write really great music for them to even pay attention! 

As for credit I do have over 10 feature films to my credit as additional composer/producer and over 200 commercials. 

Best,

Tanuj.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 6, 2012)

Send me an email, and we'll continue this discussion.

D


----------



## Christian F. Perucchi (Jun 6, 2012)

This is an interesting topic!
i´m interested too XD


----------



## gsilbers (Jun 6, 2012)

the key word is "better" 

its hard to know which ones will work out better for you. 

these companies are not as well known and some might be a kid who is trying out. other will be a music supervisor with no music library content but can get u all your tunes in big time shows. 

have you heard of vanacore? 

usually the company keeps publishing. 
u keep wirters share. and get paid rolaties. 
if u get upfront money then great but i dont see that anymore unless u are specifically doing work for a speciic show. 
if not its more like wall street stocks.. and putting your money to work 

but this time is getting your music you are not going to use or have used for something else to work to see if they get you royalties. 

also. if u have already a big collection of stuff u might be able to get paid upfront to move it. 

also. i think many composers dont care of upfront money and the music libraries keeping publishing because they submit the same song to another company with another name.

btw: i know my opinion is not the "right" one. but for me it is and has been working fine. ive earned decent from my catalog. 
mainly because i trust the guy who owns the music library company.


----------



## midphase (Jun 6, 2012)

I think that libraries who don't offer anything up front present too much risk for the composer while taking on none for themselves.

There has to be a risk-sharing going on, or else the equation is off balance. I risk my time and talent, they risk a bit of money and time, together we share the benefits.

A company who is willing to pay some up front fee has more incentive to place those tracks that they have invested in. No money up front and your music gets thrown into the big pile.

There are of course exceptions, for instance a company who already has a placement deal with several shows (i.e. Vanacore) and can guarantee that your tracks will get utilized and hence you will receive PRO money, can probably forego the upfront money and still get access to quality tracks from professional composers. In my experience however, when that is the case, the person/company in question will also want a percentage of the Writer's Share, in some cases a pretty substantial percentage.


----------



## Jeffrey Peterson (Jun 6, 2012)

+1 Midphase. Those who do are only adding to their own demise.


----------



## rgames (Jun 6, 2012)

First of all, I've been doing library work for a few years but haven't quit my day job  So bear that in mind as you read my comments. I know there are guys on this board who do generate a lot of revenue from libraries.

Yes - get paid up-front or make sure the library has a HUGE success rate at getting placements. Also, make sure the up-front payment is worth it. I've turned down more up-front payment deals than I've accepted because the pay is usually so low.

Not getting paid up-front is OK for non-exclusives but (IMHO) a really dumb idea for exclusives. I did it once - haven't made a cent off those tracks. And odds are I never will. If the library has an extensive track record THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO DISCLOSE then maybe it might be worth it. Every time I've been asked to submit tracks exclusively with no up-front, I ask for that info. I've never gotten it... You can also put a reversion clause into the exclusive agreement, but even then, I'm not sure that makes it worthwhile to do it with no up-front. Might be.

If you really like writing cinematic orchestral music, you'll find yourself at a big disadvantage in the non-exclusive world. My experience is that those tracks sell very infrequently. The non-exclusive world is dominated by drums, guitars, and electronica. My guess is that the folks doing cinematic-type work are almost all doing it for the big-name exclusive libraries. As a percentage of all library music, I think the cinematic genre is a really tiny piece.

I've kept the writer's share on everything I've done but I don't think it's a necessity. If someone offered me a huge chunk of change for a buyout on a collection of tracks, I'd do it.

How do you get in with them? I just started sending demo CD's to libraries that sounded like they might be interested in my work. I've never been asked for credits (or a resume of any type). Also, over the last year or so, I've gotten calls from five or six asking me to submit some music. Some of those were the ones asking for exclusive tracks with crazy low up-front (or zero) payment, so I told those guys no. But a couple were decent.

Bottom line is to decide what your time is worth, estimate how much money you'll make off the deal, then compare. Nothing beats face-to-face contact but I know some folks are generating decent money from libraries without being near the folks who run the library.

rgames


----------



## RyBen (Jun 6, 2012)

I've looked into this myself recently.

Libraries are a little different than gigs.. It's not really about the upfront game most of the time. It's more about planting the seed and getting royalties.

Firstly, you should take a look at http://www.musiclibraryreport.com. Provided you subscribe to membership, there's a TON of info there, especially for newbies.

Like the previous posters have said: submitting to a certain library may be a waste of time and a bad investment. Though it's not a gigantic community yet, I like Music Library Report because the commentators are pretty blunt about their earnings and you'll get an idea of any shady business models going on. Best of all, you'll get to see what the top libraries are.. according to a handful of votes.


----------



## RiffWraith (Jun 6, 2012)

midphase @ Thu Jun 07 said:


> There are of course exceptions, for instance a company who already has a placement deal with several shows (i.e. Vanacore) and can guarantee that your tracks will get utilized and hence you will receive PRO money, can probably forego the upfront money and still get access to quality tracks from professional composers.



For the record, Vanacore's deal includes upfront money.

If there is money upfront, that is almost always an exclusive deal; libs that do not offer exclusivity and do the re-titling thing will not give money up front. But those libs should not be shunned - you can still make money from them in the form of performance royalties. The thing is, if you give your tracks to those libs, you are not losing out on anything, because those tracks can go to other libs and be used elsewhere. So, why not? It's the libs that want you to go exclusive that offer no upfront money (S3, for ex.) that you should steer clear of. As Kays pointed out, there should be some risk for both parties.

Cheers.


----------



## midphase (Jun 6, 2012)

The problem with letting non-exclusive libraries access to your tracks is that if/when you do find a an exclusive library deal that you like, trying to get those tracks off the other company's catalogue can be next to impossible.


----------



## RiffWraith (Jun 6, 2012)

midphase @ Thu Jun 07 said:


> The problem with letting non-exclusive libraries access to your tracks is that if/when you do find a an exclusive library deal that you like, trying to get those tracks off the other company's catalogue can be next to impossible.



Ehh, yeah - didn't think of that....


----------



## Tatu (Jun 6, 2012)

RiffWraith @ Thu Jun 07 said:


> midphase @ Thu Jun 07 said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with letting non-exclusive libraries access to your tracks is that if/when you do find a an exclusive library deal that you like, trying to get those tracks off the other company's catalogue can be next to impossible.
> ...



Can't you just go around those by doing some heavy self-copying? :lol:


----------



## mushanga (Jun 7, 2012)

Are you guys referring to an exclusive arrangement with a company who do not pay up-front but give you 50% of your tracks' sales (with performance royalties on top of that of course) as being a bad deal?

It may also be worth considering if the library company offers blanket licenses to their clients which, depending on the proportion that your tracks make up in the library, give you further income.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 7, 2012)

FWIW I've never been paid to write a library track in my life. In fact many companies almost do the opposite by re-couping costs from the composer's share of the Mechanicals. However, as long as the company is a reputable company which actually has clients, rather than a Web based wannabe with none, there is no real downside for many writers.

D


----------



## rpaillot (Jun 7, 2012)

Daryl @ Thu Jun 07 said:


> FWIW I've never been paid to write a library track in my life. In fact many companies almost do the opposite by re-couping costs from the composer's share of the Mechanicals. However, as long as the company is a reputable company which actually has clients, rather than a Web based wannabe with none, there is no real downside for many writers.
> 
> D



I would stay away from companies that doesnt give you 100 % of writer's share. 
If composers keep accepting such things, soon the writer's share will be ... 10 % to the composer and 90 % to the publisher.

Anyway, I've never seen a serious publisher diminishing writers share... it's a real downside for writers !


----------



## Daryl (Jun 7, 2012)

rpaillot @ Thu Jun 07 said:


> Daryl @ Thu Jun 07 said:
> 
> 
> > FWIW I've never been paid to write a library track in my life. In fact many companies almost do the opposite by re-couping costs from the composer's share of the Mechanicals. However, as long as the company is a reputable company which actually has clients, rather than a Web based wannabe with none, there is no real downside for many writers.
> ...


You misunderstand me. The writer is not automatically entitled to any Mechanicals, unless they are negotiated, which is what I was talking about. However, when it comes to Broadcast Royalties, in the UK the composer is not allowed to receive any less than 100% of the writers' share.

D


----------



## midphase (Jun 7, 2012)

Guys,

You either call yourself (and behave) like a professional or you don't. Giving a library your music for no up front money is called doing "spec" work.

The downside is that you're working for free. Doing free work in hopes that maybe some day you might see a return from it is not what a professional does. You're also pissing into your own well by continuing to erode the perceived value of music...but that's a whole other discussion.

As I said, there are some exceptions, but they are rare.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 7, 2012)

midphase @ Thu Jun 07 said:


> Guys,
> 
> You either call yourself (and behave) like a professional or you don't. Giving a library your music for no up front money is called doing "spec" work.
> 
> The downside is that you're working for free. Doing free work in hopes that maybe some day you might see a return from it is not what a professional does. You're also pissing into your own well by continuing to erode the perceived value of music...but that's a whole other discussion.


So I'm not a professional then? :roll: 

D


----------



## midphase (Jun 7, 2012)

If you're perfectly ok giving your music away for free on hopes that someday you might see a return on it...hate to break it to you!


----------



## rpaillot (Jun 7, 2012)

Daryl @ Thu Jun 07 said:


> rpaillot @ Thu Jun 07 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl @ Thu Jun 07 said:
> ...



I indeed misunderstood. Sorry for that 

R


----------



## Daryl (Jun 7, 2012)

midphase @ Thu Jun 07 said:


> If you're perfectly ok giving your music away for free on hopes that someday you might see a return on it...hate to break it to you!


Well it seems to me that being an amateur suits me fine then.

D


----------



## rgames (Jun 7, 2012)

orchestranova @ Thu Jun 07 said:


> Are you guys referring to an exclusive arrangement with a company who do not pay up-front but give you 50% of your tracks' sales (with performance royalties on top of that of course) as being a bad deal?


Most likely: yes.

The exception (as noted above) is if you know the library is generating a lot of placements. Then it *might* be worth it.

In general, though, bad idea.

rgames


----------



## Daryl (Jun 7, 2012)

rgames @ Thu Jun 07 said:


> orchestranova @ Thu Jun 07 said:
> 
> 
> > Are you guys referring to an exclusive arrangement with a company who do not pay up-front but give you 50% of your tracks' sales (with performance royalties on top of that of course) as being a bad deal?
> ...


Richard, in a way you're quite right, but I can tell you for a fact that some of the big libraries would never pay an upfront fee, unless it was an advance. I prefer not to get advances, because it goes me better negotiating power for a bigger slice of the Mechanicals and PRS.

Obviously it means that I am taking some risk, but as I've never yet written a track that hasn't at least paid for the time and money I spent on it, I consider it a good risk. If the library is only a small one, or they don't have a good record on placement, it would be a bigger risk. However, for me the risk is so small as to be negligible. :wink: 

D


----------



## mushanga (Jun 7, 2012)

Does anyone have experience with this company or know how they run...

http://audiojungle.net/

No up front fee of course, and it looks like they take at least 50% of sales...but what about royalties? :?


----------



## Daryl (Jun 7, 2012)

It says Royalty free, so I assume that means that if you're a member of PRS, you can't give your music to them. However, why would you want to?

D


----------



## rgames (Jun 7, 2012)

Daryl @ Thu Jun 07 said:


> Richard, in a way you're quite right, but I can tell you for a fact that some of the big libraries would never pay an upfront fee, unless it was an advance. I prefer not to get advances, because it goes me better negotiating power for a bigger slice of the Mechanicals and PRS.



Yes - working with exclusives with no up-front fee can be fine (as I said). As I also said, that's only the case when you know they're generating placements.

For someone just starting out, I'm willing to bet that's not the case.


----------



## mushanga (Jun 7, 2012)

Daryl @ Thu 07 Jun said:


> It says Royalty free, so I assume that means that if you're a member of PRS, you can't give your music to them. However, why would you want to?
> 
> D



Duh...my bad, didn't see that! 

To earn money as quickly as possible...at least I guess that's why people do it? Is there another approach you would suggest? Very tricky situation for composers trying to earn a living whilst not wanting to get ripped off..


----------



## madbulk (Jun 7, 2012)

orchestranova @ Thu Jun 07 said:


> Daryl @ Thu 07 Jun said:
> 
> 
> > It says Royalty free, so I assume that means that if you're a member of PRS, you can't give your music to them. However, why would you want to?
> ...



It's not a ripoff, it's just a market. (You didn't say it was a rip off -- I'm not putting words in your mouth.) There are lots of segments in the production music market. The segment that an AudioJungle type library operates in would possibly otherwise just steal your music or even a Van Halen track, perhaps not even knowing they're not entitled. It's the lowest rung, but not an illegitimate one. It's almost certainly not going to pay a royalty anyway -- it's (probably) not broadcast. It's a casual game, or a youtube video, or a on-hold music application, or whatever.

This doesn't take into consideration Kays' point. We can go around and around the value of music and the slippery slope but just for a second let's say that's beside the point. There's lots of music licenses available at $29.95 and lots of music applications (placements) that wouldn't justify much more than that. So they'll pay 30 bucks, steal a tune, or endure silence.


----------



## Jeffrey Peterson (Jun 7, 2012)

madbulk @ Thu Jun 07 said:


> orchestranova @ Thu Jun 07 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl @ Thu 07 Jun said:
> ...



That is funny. Self entitled wankers  Its true though. Kids are growing up in a world where they get EVERYTHING for free and expect EVERYTHING for free. When you tell them..."Wait, you have to pay for that." I'm not working so you don't have to. I'm working so I can pay for things too. They look at you in disbelief. "....Paaayy?"


----------



## rgames (Jun 7, 2012)

orchestranova @ Thu Jun 07 said:


> Daryl @ Thu 07 Jun said:
> 
> 
> > It says Royalty free, so I assume that means that if you're a member of PRS, you can't give your music to them. However, why would you want to?
> ...



The term "Royalty Free" is often misused, even by the libraries who grant the licenses. By law, if your composition is broadcast, you're entitled to *at least* the writer's share of the royalty. The term "Royalty Free" usually means that the client doesn't have to pay for multiple uses, broadcast or otherwise. In other words, a standard license would specify the use for the track (e.g. a TV show, or a movie, or whatever). If that client licensed the track for a film, he'd have to pay for another license to use it on TV, or on the web, or anywhere else not included in the original license.

A "Royalty Free" license gives the client a blanket license to use the track wherever and as often as he wants - he pays one time and has the right to use the track wherever he sees fit. He can use it in a movie, and a TV show, and a commercial and whatever. He pays the license fee only once and never has to pay again for uses in other contexts. However, if one of those uses is broadcast, you're still entitled to broadcast royalties because that has nothing to do with your client. Broadcast royalties are paid by the broadcaster, not the production.

So, bottom line: you ALWAYS get AT LEAST writer's broadcast royalties unless it's a buyout deal.

The only arrangement that is truly "royalty free" is the one where you are work-for-hire (i.e. a true buyout deal).

rgames


----------



## Adamich (Jun 7, 2012)

I've been working for a library now for about three years. It's exclusive, and they buy-out in cash. This has been my priority job, though I do gigs on the side for some pocket money and branching my name out a bit.

In my experience, exclusive libraries do not have a huge roster of composers. Also, each composer works on their own album. As in albums, think Nemesis, Legend, etc by TSFH. 

So a cinematic epic guy will be asked to write the full Epic album. The fantasy guy will write the fantasy album. The electronica guy might be asked to write the corporate album. You get the point.

My only tip is this, pick something. Pick what you are good at and what you love to do. If you love writing fantasy music, write a kickass demo reel of this, showing different sides in that genre. A few adventure pieces, a few battle fantasy pieces. Some nice fantasy ambient, etc etc. Then send out your reel with a resume. Though, in my experience, 90% of it is how good a composer/mixer you are. Passed experience does not matter much with libraries. If you show you can write the pieces, they will be happy. You are pitching your product to them.

So I guess what Im trying to say, is you are applying for a position in the company. They are not going to hire 10 cinematic action guys who only write that. They will pick the best of the bunch of give him the bulk of what to do. Two reasons. One, because he's the best. And two, because they don't need that much music for one genre as it is, and much of the time, can't afford it anyway.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 8, 2012)

rgames @ Fri Jun 08 said:


> orchestranova @ Thu Jun 07 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl @ Thu 07 Jun said:
> ...


Again, you're mostly right, but AFAIK when you write for a library that is "Royalty free" there isn't always a guarantee that your music won't be used on one of those rip-off channels that doesn't pay Broadcast Royalties. The way to find out is when the contract arrives and it says that you can't be a member of a PRO. :wink: 

D


----------



## Daryl (Jun 8, 2012)

Adamich @ Fri Jun 08 said:


> I've been working for a library now for about three years. It's exclusive, and they buy-out in cash. This has been my priority job, though I do gigs on the side for some pocket money and branching my name out a bit.
> 
> In my experience, exclusive libraries do not have a huge roster of composers. Also, each composer works on their own album. As in albums, think Nemesis, Legend, etc by TSFH.
> 
> ...


Again it all depends on the library. I can tell you for a fact that if you were asked to write for KPM, you would actually be pitching tracks, with no guarantee that they would even make it onto the album. Many of their albums are now multi composer, and having your own album is now only for the minority of composers.

One reason for this is that it enables a quick turn around. For those genres that are basically musical wallpaper (like Cinematic Action...!), where you cut it off by the metre, there is no up side to having to wait a few months whilst a composer slaves away at an album. It is much better to get a group of 5 or 6 writers to contribute a few tracks each, and then release the album as soon as possible.

All I'm trying to say is that it really depends on the library, and the composer.

D


----------



## musicformedia (Jun 8, 2012)

Hi guys, I wrote an article about this subject on my blog:

http://www.filmandgamecomposers.com/gui ... dio-market

Also, a couple of things. My full time job is writing for libraries. I am with one exclusive library - they pay no upfront fees, but from nearly 40 tracks I earn enough to live on each month, so yes being with certain exclusives is worth it even if they pay no upfront fees. I am also with about 10 non-exclusive libraries, which send me small amounts of money each month - it trickles in, but can add up.

Audiojungle is one of the lowest paying sites out there - they currently pay only 33% of sales to you if you work with them non-exclusively. The industry standard is 50% for non exclusive libraries.

Emmett


----------



## Simplesly (Jun 8, 2012)

I have a few tracks on Audiojungle. You can choose whether you are an exclusive or non-exclusive author, but you can't mix and match which tracks have which status. You need to make a separate non-exclusive account for example. You can also switch your exclusive account to non-exclusive if you want. There is something called an "extended license" - a more expensive license that is intended for commercial works that will be sold rather than broadcast. 

Regardless of your status, you are not allowed to register any tracks with your PRO. This is becoming a problem with AJ because as it gains popularity, it is gaining the attention of major music supervisors. Many composers on there are producing very high quality stuff and are able to use the site's extensive resources to establish a good brand for themselves. I have heard tracks from exclusive authors getting network airplay in major TV spots, the Super Bowl, etc.. These composers are not getting paid a cent in royalties for any of it. Of course, the micro-license nature of the library means that if you're popular and exclusive and selling above 300 licenses a month, you can consider using the site as your primary income stream. It adds up quickly.


----------



## midphase (Jun 8, 2012)

How do you figure?

300 licenses x $14 = $4200

However Audio Jungle takes 2/3 of it...so composer net is closer to $1400 or roughly $350/week or roughly $8.75/hour (based on 40 hour week). You're making roughly minimum wage, you live below the poverty line, you have no benefits...and all that of course assumes that you maintain a steady number of sales for 12 months/year.

WAKE THE FUCK UP PEOPLE!!!


----------



## Simplesly (Jun 8, 2012)

midphase @ Fri Jun 08 said:


> How do you figure?
> 
> 300 licenses x $14 = $4200
> 
> ...



you're right Kays, for non-exclusive composers it does suck - as an extra revenue stream it's ok, since the stuff does just get used in Youtube vids mostly. 

but I said _exclusive_ composers make the real money. Take the top dude, who sells around 800 tracks a month. 

800 x 14 = $11,200 

throw in probably 40-50 extended licenses average around $50 each. 

Let's just say around $13,000 total, multiplied by .70 (70% is the payout rate at that level of sales) = $9100/month. 

cut that in half and you're still doing okay - as an exclusive. A number of cats on there have stated on the AJ forum that they can pretty much subsist on their AJ income alone. And they have closer to the 300-400 mark per month..


----------



## rgames (Jun 8, 2012)

Daryl @ Fri Jun 08 said:


> Again, you're mostly right, but AFAIK when you write for a library that is "Royalty free" there isn't always a guarantee that your music won't be used on one of those rip-off channels that doesn't pay Broadcast Royalties. The way to find out is when the contract arrives and it says that you can't be a member of a PRO. :wink:


That's right - the channels that don't have a deal with a PRO won't get you anything in broadcast royalties. But that's true even if they license a track through a non-royalty-free site.

Regarding contracts that say you can't be a member of a PRO - that's illegal. It's just like the yellow-dog issues the AFM was confronting.

rgames


----------



## Daryl (Jun 8, 2012)

rgames @ Fri Jun 08 said:


> Daryl @ Fri Jun 08 said:
> 
> 
> > Again, you're mostly right, but AFAIK when you write for a library that is "Royalty free" there isn't always a guarantee that your music won't be used on one of those rip-off channels that doesn't pay Broadcast Royalties. The way to find out is when the contract arrives and it says that you can't be a member of a PRO. :wink:
> ...


Those channels wouldn't be allowed to use my music anyway. Actually that's not quite true. When they want to air a program that has music composed by a PRS member, they have to do a special deal, and in those situations they do pay up!


rgames @ Fri Jun 08 said:


> Regarding contracts that say you can't be a member of a PRO - that's illegal. It's just like the yellow-dog issues the AFM was confronting.


Since when has legality ever stopped anyone. :lol: 

D


----------



## midphase (Jun 8, 2012)

Simplesly @ Fri Jun 08 said:


> Let's just say around $13,000 total, multiplied by .70 (70% is the payout rate at that level of sales) = $9100/month.
> 
> cut that in half and you're still doing okay - as an exclusive. A number of cats on there have stated on the AJ forum that they can pretty much subsist on their AJ income alone. And they have closer to the 300-400 mark per month..



You're making some pretty hefty assumptions. I really don't understand this mentality of picking the exception and using it as the rule. Would you apply the same philosophy if you needed a medical treatment? Why not go to Vegas instead? Seriously, the odds of earning a living of some sort by playing black jack all day long are probably higher!


----------



## rgames (Jun 8, 2012)

Simplesly @ Fri Jun 08 said:


> A number of cats on there have stated on the AJ forum that they can pretty much subsist on their AJ income alone. And they have closer to the 300-400 mark per month..


Thank goodness everyone always tells the truth, especially on the internet...!

rgames


----------



## gsilbers (Jun 8, 2012)

i thought the way to do it was to have the same song with different name in different non exclusive libraries.


----------



## Jeffrey Peterson (Jun 8, 2012)

rgames @ Thu Jun 07 said:


> orchestranova @ Thu Jun 07 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl @ Thu 07 Jun said:
> ...



Hey Rgames, we've talked before but I forgot your first name and I apologize. I am with a number of libraries as well. As far as the non-exclusive goes I don't understand your post above. You say they "have" to file with the PRO if its broadcasted yet there are many "Royalty Free" libraries that don't ask for you PRO.
Therefore the customer doesn't know your PRO, therefore no royalties for you.


----------



## Simplesly (Jun 8, 2012)

rgames @ Fri Jun 08 said:


> Simplesly @ Fri Jun 08 said:
> 
> 
> > A number of cats on there have stated on the AJ forum that they can pretty much subsist on their AJ income alone. And they have closer to the 300-400 mark per month..
> ...



they don't need to - the site publishes the monthly totals of top sellers.


----------



## Simplesly (Jun 8, 2012)

gsilbers @ Fri Jun 08 said:


> i thought the way to do it was to have the same song with different name in different non exclusive libraries.



I think the draw for top sellers is the branding that can be done - the site provides you with really good metrics and referral system (which incidentally is another way to make money on the site. People market their material on Youtube and put referral links to generate clickthroughs. You can also brand each individual track by assigning its own icon and custom HTML enriched descriptions etc. 

It's far from the perfect library, but for some people with the right material (and the right amount of it), there is the possibility to achieve meteoric success in little time - it's been done by several new marketplace members this year alone.


----------



## midphase (Jun 8, 2012)

I would encourage people interested in Audio Jungle to first read up some of the rules...doesn't sound that peachy once you take a closer look:

http://support.envato.com/index.php?/Kn ... or-authors

Looks like they set the price for you, they can reject your material for any reason, non-exclusive can make as little as 25% (insane ripoff for the author), and the tracks which appear to have been purchased the most are songs which can be considerably more time consuming to create and produce than instrumentals.

Out of hundreds if not thousands of submissions, only a handful appear to be making it worth their while. I suppose if you're a college student, it might beat working at a fast food joint...maybe.


----------



## midphase (Jun 8, 2012)

When it comes to places like Audio Jungle...you might seriously want to ask yourself if you're ok being such a bottom feeder. We don't really think much about the generations of industry composers who came before us, but I think for the most part there was a modicum of self respect and value for one's work.

We seem to have become so short sighted about our industry, everything is in the here and now with little care about how this will affect our future and future generations. There is this sense of self-entitlement (I don't mean it in the same way as republicans) where a person feels that in order to call themselves a professional composer, they are willing to sacrifice the very definition of "professional." 

The more sane way to look at this industry is to realize that devaluation and underbidding are not the way "in." Do you really think that the great composers of our profession became recognized by saying "yes" to everyone regardless of how little value was attached to their work?

Some people might have to ask themselves some though questions, and possibly arrive at the conclusion that for them, a careen in music is simply not an option. Just because you can sell your music for next to nothing doesn't mean that you should, or that it's the right and ethical thing to do. No other industry does this, no other professional....why us?

So sure, if you're Tim McMorris, you're probably pulling in an "ok" annual income...but for how long? How many more years can he count on from his Audio Jungle revenue stream? Is he making a name for himself with film and television producers? I don't think so, I think that sooner rather than later the income will dry up and he'll be left with a great deal of questions as to what happened to the industry that he helped erode.

Happy friday everyone!!!


----------



## jleckie (Jun 8, 2012)

Could not agree MORE with the above assessment of the music library climate. And its not just music libraries. I looked up a guy whose name I've seen on a few end title credits of films and his IMDB lists him as scoring over 200 movies. Turns out this guy GIVES HIS STUFF away to each and every production for the credit. How much lower value can you possibility put on what composers actually do???

This probably deserves another topic but I recently saw a movie scored by DOZENS of people who GIVE THEIR MUSIC AWAY for credit and the film had this awful sense of disjointed piecemeal feel to it and it was all because of this horrible music editors job of pasting these dozens of bits and pieces together. 

It was a train wreck to say the least....

And the REALLY sad part was the director thought his film was great. He has NO IDEA what it is to work with ONE film composer to give his picture a cohesive feel. Really really sad...


----------



## dinerdog (Jun 8, 2012)

I agree with what Kays is saying. Unfortunately, I think there's kind of a short term mentality with a lot of creative people. They think: "I'll just do this until my fees go up and bigger stuff comes along". It's too late by then, and make no mistake, you are contributing to the downward value of your music and everyone else's. I know it's a tough time to stand on principle, but it's like that old saying: "If you don't stand for something, you'll go for anything".

Sort of related is the thought provoking film: PressPausePlay, a must watch for anyone here:

http://www.presspauseplay.com/

jleckie - to add to your post, I think Moby actually has a site set up where he'll give music of his away to indie film makers to use. More fuel for the fire.


----------



## wst3 (Jun 8, 2012)

Hey Kays - well said! I agree with you on all counts, but I would point out that composers are not the only ones that are following this path... recording studios charging $15/hour, young bands paying to play... the entire music industry is suffering.

Not that this makes it right for composers to work for less than minimum wage, or cheapen the term professional...


----------



## Simplesly (Jun 8, 2012)

I guess it depends on how you look at it - as the point was made earlier, in theory AJ fills a niche in the global market for inexpensive LEGAL tracks for micro budget projects - Youtube vids and the like - where you'd potentially get piracy to fill the music needs otherwise. Whether you agree or not, the explosion of online media necessitates these kinds of marketplaces. Without them, these various video projects would be music-less, or worse, be using your latest cue illegally. 

At the end of the day, many of the top AJ authors are looking at their sales totals and not really caring how they ended up with $5k in their accounts, and don't consider themselves "bottom feeders." I am fully aware that AJ is not necessarily a primary income stream for a majority of its composers, but it's a specific model that works in a specific market.

The big issue that is arising more recently is the more common occurrence of high profile placements - i.e. national TV spots (in multiple countries). People are complaining because it's just as easy to use an AJ track in a network TV ad as it is in a youtube video. 

Kays, I think you have a point about the value one places on one's own work, and whether a library like AJ is appropriate in first place, especially as as beginner. But you have to consider that with good material and good "marketing" - even a beginner can make a killing on that site. I've been watching it happen over the last two years. As for myself, i'm considering just pulling my AJ catalog (it's easy to do) and submitting them to another library(ies). It's becoming a saturated marketplace pretty quickly (quadrupled over the past year, and much of it is crap the reviewers are letting through...)


----------



## Mike Marino (Jun 8, 2012)

> I recently saw a movie scored by DOZENS of people



Really? Wow. What was the name of the film? I'm curious now.


----------



## RiffWraith (Jun 8, 2012)

Mike Marino @ Sat Jun 09 said:


> > I recently saw a movie scored by DOZENS of people
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Wow. What was the name of the film? I'm curious now.



Me too. Which film, please?


----------



## RiffWraith (Jun 8, 2012)

jleckie @ Sat Jun 09 said:


> I looked up a guy whose name I've seen on a few end title credits of films and his IMDB lists him as scoring over 200 movies.



Huh???? Who is this? That means that he has scored one movie _every three months _(4/yr) for *50 years*. Meaning he is well into his 70s by now. I'd like to know who this composer is, if you don't mind. If you don't remember his name, check your browser history for IMDB pages visited.


----------



## jleckie (Jun 8, 2012)

He is very young too. You guys MUST know his name. I see his ads everywhere giving away midi files AND music. I'm not going to say for political reasons. 

As far as the name of the film I cant say because I worked on the visuals. But C'mon theres a group right under your nose that hires 2-6 composers for films and gets credit as a group. 

Hint: Ever hear of the Collective?


----------



## musicformedia (Jun 9, 2012)

jleckie @ Sat Jun 09 said:


> He is very young too. You guys MUST know his name. I see his ads everywhere giving away midi files AND music. I'm not going to say for political reasons.
> 
> As far as the name of the film I cant say because I worked on the visuals. But C'mon theres a group right under your nose that hires 2-6 composers for films and gets credit as a group.
> 
> Hint: Ever hear of the Collective?



http://www.thecomposercollective.com/ for anyone who still doesnt know


----------



## Daryl (Jun 9, 2012)

dinerdog @ Sat Jun 09 said:


> I agree with what Kays is saying. Unfortunately, I think there's kind of a short term mentality with a lot of creative people. They think: "I'll just do this until my fees go up and bigger stuff comes along". It's too late by then, and make no mistake, you are contributing to the downward value of your music and everyone else's. I know it's a tough time to stand on principle, but it's like that old saying: "If you don't stand for something, you'll go for anything".


However, the fact that the industry pays less and has lower budgets than ever before is entirely due to the fact that in the past (and some ofthe culprilts have already posted in this thread...!) composers haven't stuck up for anyone, other than themselves. For example, how many of the composers scoring TV movies even have the budget for an orchestra any more? Very few, and that's entirely their own fault for accepting lower and lower budgets, and being willing to undercut other people.

It is hypocritical to criticize young aspiring composers for taking a bad deal, when the only other option available to them is no deal at all. I am also not arrogant enough to feel that I can tell other people not to follow their dreams in attempting to become a composer, when that's exactly what I did.

D


----------



## RiffWraith (Jun 9, 2012)

musicformedia @ Sat Jun 09 said:


> jleckie @ Sat Jun 09 said:
> 
> 
> > He is very young too. You guys MUST know his name. I see his ads everywhere giving away midi files AND music. I'm not going to say for political reasons.
> ...



Oh that? Evan hasn't scored 200 films.


----------



## wst3 (Jun 9, 2012)

Kays and Daryl both have some good points here - I'd love to hear more about them from both working and aspiring composers!

Specifically:

The short term mentality... it pervades everything from Wall Street to Hollywood. It's a big part of the reason (IMHO) that the economy can't recover quickly... how do you recover when you are worried only about the quarterly - maybe monthly - P&L? The answer is, you don't! And that applies to everyone from the independent contractor to the Fortune 50 mega-company to the government.

Which is entirely different from placing an appropriate value on your work, but that is just as important! The problem is, it's really difficult (at least for me) to judge one's work. How do you know when it is time to stick your toe in the water? (Probably fodder for an entire thread<G>!)

Those are both internal forces - they are things that we have (some) control over. We can say that we believe our best work is worth top dollar, and we can demand that we are compensated thusly. And yes, sometimes that means saying "no" - which is darned difficult in the best of times.

Here's the thing... it wasn't uncommon, in the recent past, for people pursuing careers in the arts (recording engineer, composer, dancer, actor, singer... whatever) to have to take on a day job to pay the bills. It was understood that you can't start out on the A-list. That entire thought process seems to have evaporated.

What that means is that yes, you probably need to work on some low budget projects before you get to the big budget projects.

What that doesn't mean is that you should agree to work on a big budget project for little or no money.

Take on that student film, or local advertiser... do your best... get noticed, move up a rung and repeat. But don't cut the throats of folks further up the ladder for your perceived benefit - you are cutting your own throat too.

Sadly, there are external forces too, although I believe we are all enabling them to a degree, we don't have much control over them, at least not as individuals.

Producers have discovered that there are composers out there who will work for peanuts. Since the producer's priority is to show a profit on this film they are going to lean towards the low bidder - quality is not so much a metric anymore.

If no one took on the project that'd be a different story - but they will find someone who will work on the project for peanuts, and no recording budget.

This leads to smaller budgets - and perhaps even the requirement to render the entire score virtually - on bigger projects because these producers are watching what the smaller projects are doing. And so it goes, all the way up the ladder, with only a handful of exceptions at the top.

This is true almost everywhere in music and audio - it isn't just the composers. How many $15/hour studios have put more serious facilities out of business? Can you really run a studio at that rate? I don't think so, but artists and labels are willing to sacrifice quality for a quick buck. And the public doesn't seem to care as much about audio quality as they once did (maybe they never did?)

It's true in the installed AV world - I'm working on a project right now that requires the best amplifiers and loudspeakers and processors (I was blown away by the equipment selected) and one of the crappiest mixers in the world. I'm not sure there is a good place to have a weak link, but I am certain that the mixer is not the place to cut corners. It's sad, but this system isn't going to reach it's potential.

I think that's enough examples, on to the other side of the coin...

Is it hypocritical, or even unfair, to criticize an aspiring composer, or recording engineer or artist of any ilk to take a bad deal over no deal at all? I'm not sure I can answer that, but it certainly is food for thought. Everyone here is chasing a dream, and the number of folks that will earn a decent living as composers is pretty small.

The market is trying to expand that number, while reducing the definition of decent living. That's what the market wants to do. And there are some benefits - by granting access to more composers we may hear some really cool music we would never have heard otherwise. But it isn't without a cost - to everyone. That's what needs to be weighed.

The folks in the middle who take advantage of aspiring artists (any field) are the one group I hold in contempt - but they've always been around. Some here must remember those ads in the backs of magazine about "send us your lyrics"? It's just that the internet makes it so much easier.

I don't know if the companies mentioned here fall into that category, but my sense is that they do. They have figured out a way to leverage the efforts of composers who have no other entry - or who think they have no other entry.

The thing that saddens me most about all of this is that there are literally an infinite number of paths one can follow, and just as many goals, and the vast majority are legit.

For example, I enjoy many aspects of music and audio. I like to design circuits, and systems, I like to record music, to play music, and to write music. (I am not a big fan of trying to do all those things on a single project!)

Some of those markets remain lucrative - designing circuits still pays well, even when working with startups. If one is careful designing systems is also lucrative, but there are a lot of "trunk slammers" out there, so much of that work results from fixing a bad design - then you get the next project<G>!

Some of these markets have all but evaporated. I would not open a for-hire studio again... there's just no money in it. I still record demo projects, but the artist has to be willing to pay my rates... I've already discounted those rates a little - it just isn't worth it discount any further. Maybe if the next obvious superstar walked in? Maybe!

With respect to original music composition - I take on projects that really interest me. Some of them are freebies, but that's because I choose to do so, and I know that no one else is going to be interested. I work with a local community theatre, mostly I do lighting and sound design, and it's an all volunteer organization. My brother and I have staged about 30 shows there, mostly classics that we've revisited (The Tempest in an insane asylum, Taming of the Shrew in the wild west, Midsummer Night's Dream in Appalachia, etc.)

For Midsummer we decided an original underscore would be cool, so I wrote it for guitar and fiddle. It worked well (so I'm told), and even better, it resulted in paying business. Then we put a small pit band on stage in The Tempest, that worked even better, and resulted in more paying business.

The thing is, I could go in (almost) any direction I wanted, I had about as close to complete artistic freedom as one can get. That was worth it to me, because it let me see what I could do.

Sadly - and ironically - even without having to pay rights these shows were never as profitable as the standard door-slamming farce, and the company needed to make more money. In what I consider a short sighted decision (because attendance was growing for the classics, and the quality of actors auditioning was growing even faster) the company decided to skip the classics for five years. 

I say sadly because the strategy is working - the company is solvent, and has been able to make investments in infrastructure that would have been otherwise impossible. But they've lost both actors and audience - not that anyone seems to notice!

And I say ironically because, well, it speaks to the whole issue we're addressing here.

There are no simple solutions, I'm not even sure the question has been properly framed yet. But I do know that as long as artists are willing to take it on the chin there will be business people willing to take advantage of them!


----------



## Daryl (Jun 9, 2012)

Bill, I don't think I disagree with anything you say.

In all of this I believe that there is a line which we shouldn't cross, but in my view it is wrong for anyone to try to dictate where that line is. For example, I could make a case for saying that nobody should ever render an "orchestral" score using samples, because it is putting orchestral musicians, studios, orchestrators, copyists and engineers out of work. However, if that were the case, then most on this forum would be unemployed, so how can I say to them that they should sacrifice their dreams, just to keep mine afloat?

D


----------



## Mike Marino (Jun 9, 2012)

> In all of this I believe that there is a line which we shouldn't cross, but in my view it is wrong for anyone to try to dictate where that line is.



Well said Daryl.

I would only add three more words to what you just said: "...but in my view it is wrong for anyone to try to dictate where that line is" for someone else.

- Mike


----------



## Daryl (Jun 9, 2012)

Mike Marino @ Sat Jun 09 said:


> > In all of this I believe that there is a line which we shouldn't cross, but in my view it is wrong for anyone to try to dictate where that line is.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, sorry that's what I meant. Thanks for clarifying.

D


----------



## Mike Marino (Jun 9, 2012)

No worries. Easy for us amateurs to say.


----------



## midphase (Jun 9, 2012)

Daryl @ Sat Jun 09 said:


> It is hypocritical to criticize young aspiring composers for taking a bad deal, when the only other option available to them is no deal at all. I am also not arrogant enough to feel that I can tell other people not to follow their dreams in attempting to become a composer, when that's exactly what I did.
> 
> D



Daryl,

I think it's important for everyone to collectively pull our heads our of our asses every once in a while and take a serious look at reality. I disagree with this idea that this is the land of the "haves, and soon to haves." Of course it shouldn't deter people from trying, but only after making educated choices and decisions and determining if it is a realistic path (emphasis on the word "realistic). 

I said above that the common mindset seems to be to look at the exception and turn it into a rule. While Simplesy is using the handful of success cases on AJ to support his point, he fails to mention the much larger number of failures that probably don't even generate the required $50/month minimum to trigger a PayPal payment (oh yeah...forgot to mention that PayPal also takes their share out of your money in my previous post).

I grew up with the guys who did Blair Witch Project, I can't tell you how many times I have heard others refer to BWP as a valid justification to shoot a micro budget film that can go on to make $200mil at the box office. It's rubbish, one wouldn't play the lottery as a way to make a living would they? Yet that's exactly what I see happening with films. My friends won the lottery, and they know it. They know it so well in fact, that they took their winnings, put it into a financial portfolio and that's what they have all been living on for the past 12 years (and only direct a film if someone else gives them money). Even they know insanely lucky their circumstance has been...yet so many others are so willing to use BWP as proof that they will have a good chance to expect similar results. It makes no sense!

Want to know how many films were submitted to Sundance this past year? Let me copy and paste the e-mail that I received from them:

"We received more than 11,700 films for consideration this year, which obviously did not make our decision-making process any easier. We selected less than 180 films from around the globe, so the competition was stiff to say the least." 

Almost 12k films this past year alone...only 180 selected, and out of those 180 how many will you ever hear about? How many will go on to barely break even?

To go back to my original point Daryl, we have reached a critical mass in the field of film/TV/commercial composition where the reality is that any newcomer is facing such ridiculous odds that he/she really needs to ask themselves if it's at all possible for them to get anywhere with it (or at least look in the mirror and ask themselves "Feeling lucky, punk?").

The sense of entitlement that I speak about, comes when we compare music composition as a viable job alternative to any other career path out there...sure it's harder and more competitive, but it's still a career...right? No! It's not! It has quickly become a luxury. Working as a composer (particularly for film) should be equated with wanting to become a F1 driver, or wanting to climb Mt. Everest or be the first man on Mars. It's not a right...it's a privilege, one that's becoming available to selected few (mostly those with secondary incomes).

Sorry, I know it's not what most of you want to hear, but if we can all just be honest about the state of things for a moment I think we'd all agree. There are always exceptions, but they are not the norm, and that implies that the vast majority of upcoming composers will fail as they will not be part of the exception, they will be part of the norm.

Note also that this industry is not a meritocracy, being really really good at what you do will not necessarily give you access to that exception spot.

Going back to the post that started this entire thread:

Tanuj wrote:

"I ask this because I love writing cinematic music but its of little use in India. I cant move to London or LA without any offers so I am exploring the prospects of writing for music libraries. "

Sorry Tanuj, you might be S.O.L. (old American saying...look it up). The reality is that if you're just starting out, and you don't live near a city that has film or TV production (not that that would necessarily guarantee much), you might arrive at the sad conclusion that you're going to have to find another way to make a living. Sure you can submit your music (for free) to the handful of music libraries mentioned on this thread, in hopes that maybe they will result in some sort of income for you (who knows? maybe in India those $200/month will go a long way). However, do know that in the long run, they probably won't, and in the meantime you will have helped take yet another tiny brick out of the foundation that so many previous generations of composers worked so hard at creating. I can't tell you what you can or can't do, but at the very least I can give you as much information as I have access to, and perhaps urge you to take an honest look at the situation and make a choice that's based in reality and not fantasy.

Best of luck to you!

...


...oh...and Happy Saturday everyone!!!


----------



## jleckie (Jun 9, 2012)

I did not say he did. They are two different entities I was mentioning. They are not related.



RiffWraith @ Sat Jun 09 said:


> musicformedia @ Sat Jun 09 said:
> 
> 
> > jleckie @ Sat Jun 09 said:
> ...


----------



## jleckie (Jun 9, 2012)

And ever hear of "Pay to Play"? 

That's even worse. 

I think we are about to the point where most bottom feeders in the composer field who may have even been lucky enough to make 10-30K per score are approaching the $10.00 p/hr mark at making music.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jun 9, 2012)

From Film Music Magazine:

http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=8075

http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=6293

http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=5899

http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=5673

http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=3574


----------



## rgames (Jun 9, 2012)

One more comment to add to Kays - 

I have experience in a number of different industries and I can tell you, without a doubt, the music biz has more sleazebags than just about any other except those that are illegal. Now before everyone goes off on that comment, note that it doesn't say everyone in the music biz is a sleazebag. Rather it says that the music biz has a higher percentage of sleazebags than other industries.

Given that fact, when you hear people talk about how successful they are, aren't you willing to be a bit suspicious? "Success Breeds Success", right? And "Fake it Till You Make It" right? I have pretty compelling evidence that some of the low-end libraries I've worked with have blatantly overstated their successes in the hopes that faking it will make it for them. They form a coalition of people who collectively try to pull the wool over your eyes in the hopes that the can make something from nothing. I don't know if that's the case with AJ, but I do know it happens. At best, I think it's safe to assume you're not getting the whole story.

In the end, though, it doesn't matter: who cares about someone else's success? If it doesn't work for you, why do it? I worked with some of the low-end libraries when I started out - I, too, read the success stories. And, in the end, they were a waste of my time.

Here's the kicker: go look at the libraries that do big business. Do you see them giving sales stats on their websites? Of course not. Do the f'ing math!

rgames


----------



## mushanga (Jun 9, 2012)

rgames @ Thu 07 Jun said:


> orchestranova @ Thu Jun 07 said:
> 
> 
> > Are you guys referring to an exclusive arrangement with a company who do not pay up-front but give you 50% of your tracks' sales (with performance royalties on top of that of course) as being a bad deal?
> ...



I have read that typically an exclusive library company will retain 100% of the sync license fee (i.e. the individual sale), so surely if they are willing to share it 50/50 with the composer then that is a good deal despite them not paying the composer up front...?


----------



## Daryl (Jun 9, 2012)

orchestranova @ Sun Jun 10 said:


> rgames @ Thu 07 Jun said:
> 
> 
> > orchestranova @ Thu Jun 07 said:
> ...


Which libraries are you thinking of? I only have experience with a few, but none of them keep all the sync fee. The only one that I know of )in the UK_) that does is Audio Network and most reputable composers won[t work for them precisely because of this issue.

D


----------



## mushanga (Jun 9, 2012)

Daryl @ Sat 09 Jun said:


> orchestranova @ Sun Jun 10 said:
> 
> 
> > rgames @ Thu 07 Jun said:
> ...



I read it here for starters - http://weallmakemusic.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-music-libraries/ - what about companies like Universal PPM? Do they retain 100% of the sync license fee?


----------



## rgames (Jun 9, 2012)

orchestranova @ Sat Jun 09 said:


> I have read that typically an exclusive library company will retain 100% of the sync license fee (i.e. the individual sale), so surely if they are willing to share it 50/50 with the composer then that is a good deal despite them not paying the composer up front...?



I don't know if there are any trends but I've seen it done both ways. The best deal I've gotten is one where the library keeps 100% of the license and I get paid up-front and keep the writer's share.

I've also worked with one exclusive that did not pay up front and paid out part of the license fee. Never made a dime with those guys...

rgames


----------



## Simplesly (Jun 9, 2012)

Hey Richard and Kays,

Look, you guys have valid points, but here's the way I see it:

Creating art for a living has been a luxury since the dawn of time. This certainly hasn't changed recently. Though forms of consumption may change, the reality of artisitic creation never will - people who get to do art for a living are lucky. I mean seriously, who ISN'T attempting to compose music or create any other art for a living based on the success stories of others? If we didn't have these examples to inspire us we'd be facing pretty grim career prospects, don't you think? It's not like being a surgeon or an engineer where your talents really do propel success - there's far less subjectivity in evaluating these professions. Not so with art - you want to get paid for your creations, you've gotta be damn good at convincing others to give you a chance.

I would rather take a less cynical and judgemental approach to what fledgling composers do to get their careers on track. If you think a library like AJ has a model that fits with your production and business skills - try it! If it doesn't work, try something else - the only caveat being that you must be aware of the potential pros and cons of the library in which you choose to sign over your work.


----------



## Jimbo 88 (Jun 9, 2012)

Simplesly @ Sat Jun 09 said:


> Hey Richard and Kays,
> 
> Look, you guys have valid points, but here's the way I see it:
> 
> ...






THis post is true EXCEPT for one major, major point...THe people who are using our music are making money. They are not just looking at it or listening to it, they are using our music in films and commercials that are generating incomes for them and their families. There are producers who are driving very nice cars because of major contributions from my music. So hence the battle of "How important is my music to your project? What is it worth?" 

Many times we are robbed of our true worth.


----------



## RyBen (Jun 10, 2012)

I'm no vet to the industry, but it appears that (for the most part) film music- or any music for productions- is simply "music" now. It's pre-produced and sold in a market, or at least this is the going trend, perhaps?

Concerning AudioJungle, I'd never submit to such a library because they show the number of a sales for a given piece, giving no chance to the no-name. But then again, that's kind of how the whole industry is, right? :lol:


----------



## Daryl (Jun 10, 2012)

orchestranova @ Sun Jun 10 said:


> Daryl @ Sat 09 Jun said:
> 
> 
> > orchestranova @ Sun Jun 10 said:
> ...


Just because you read it on the Internet doesn't make it true. If you look at the names of the companies listed at the top of that blog, they are mostly not the big players.

The real library companies, i.e. the ones that are not some re-titling, Internet scam, will almost certainly not give out details of their business models, and certainly not to someone who is not yet at the level in their writing career to even pique their interest. I'm just telling you my experiences from working with a few of the more established companies. I'm not speaking for them and I'm certainly not speaking for those Internet pretenders.

You also have to realise that the situation is very different in the UK from the States. We have more protection for composers, but up to a point they sold theirs out years ago. :wink: 

D


----------



## Daryl (Jun 10, 2012)

Jimbo 88 @ Sun Jun 10 said:


> THis post is true EXCEPT for one major, major point...THe people who are using our music are making money. They are not just looking at it or listening to it, they are using our music in films and commercials that are generating incomes for them and their families. There are producers who are driving very nice cars because of major contributions from my music. So hence the battle of "How important is my music to your project? What is it worth?"
> 
> Many times we are robbed of our true worth.


Sorry, that's not true. They can't "rob" you of something you don't give them. Just say "no". If they really value your music, you will get paid what you ask for. If they don't, they will get someone else, and in that case you will know that the only reason they specifically wanted you, was that you were perceived as being cheaper than other people.

D


----------



## Mike Marino (Jun 10, 2012)

So then lets approach it from a different angle for Tanuj and a bunch of us who haven't gone that route. Lets talk about the bigger players of the music library realm.

Who are they?
What makes them the biggest players?
How do you get a hold of them (or do some of them not take unsolicited music)?
Who is it that you guys have been working with that have done well for you?
How many tracks are you placing with these companies (on avg.)?

- Mike


----------



## Daryl (Jun 10, 2012)

Mike Marino @ Sun Jun 10 said:


> So then lets approach it from a different angle for Tanuj and a bunch of us who haven't gone that route. Lets talk about the bigger players of the music library realm.
> 
> Who are they?
> What makes them the biggest players?
> ...


Mike, I can't answer your question, because the situation in the UK is very different from the US. However, a look at the APM Website might give you some ideas of what companies are out there.

D


----------



## Mike Marino (Jun 10, 2012)

Got it, Daryl. Yeah, I'd figure maybe between that and some in-depth research through MLR might do the trick.


----------



## George Caplan (Jun 10, 2012)

daryl cant believe people pay him. :lol: 


http://www.apmmusic.com/g-l/daryl-griffith


is that the place where spitfire record their samples?


----------



## rgames (Jun 10, 2012)

Mike Marino @ Sun Jun 10 said:


> Got it, Daryl. Yeah, I'd figure maybe between that and some in-depth research through MLR might do the trick.



MLR was OK when it was free but if you're going to shell out cash then the music biz registries are much better. They have e-mail addresses and phone numbers.

In any business, there's no substitute for personal contact.

rgames


----------



## Daryl (Jun 10, 2012)

George Caplan @ Sun Jun 10 said:


> daryl cant believe people pay him. :lol:


That's just what everyone else says. :wink: 



George Caplan @ Sun Jun 10 said:


> is that the place where spitfire record their samples?


Yes, Lyndhurst Hall. That was the same engineer as well, I think.

D


----------



## Mike Marino (Jun 10, 2012)

Right on, Richard. I was just thinking it would be a good place to get a bunch of info as to what libraries are out there, then move to the personal contact part of the equation.


----------



## midphase (Jun 10, 2012)

Simplesly @ Sat Jun 09 said:


> Hey Richard and Kays,
> 
> Look, you guys have valid points, but here's the way I see it:
> 
> Creating art for a living has been a luxury since the dawn of time. This certainly hasn't changed recently. Though forms of consumption may change, the reality of artisitic creation never will - people who get to do art for a living are lucky. I mean seriously, who ISN'T attempting to compose music or create any other art for a living based on the success stories of others? If we didn't have these examples to inspire us we'd be facing pretty grim career prospects, don't you think? It's not like being a surgeon or an engineer where your talents really do propel success - there's far less subjectivity in evaluating these professions. Not so with art - you want to get paid for your creations, you've gotta be damn good at convincing others to give you a chance.



But we're not creating art, and it's a mistake to think of it that way. We are providing a service within a commercial industry, we are creating commercial products, we are a business providing a service to other businesses. We are not any different than an architect, or an interior decorator, or a copy editor, or the guy who designs furniture, and on and on. We rely on creative decisions, and those decisions can help make us in demand, but we are not artists in the sense that you would like to think. There is a difference and your logic doesn't hold.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 10, 2012)

midphase @ Sun Jun 10 said:


> We are not any different than an architect, or an interior decorator, or a copy editor, or the guy who designs furniture, and on and on.


And you've just made the argument for the buyout. No Royalties any more. Thanks for that. :( 

D


----------



## midphase (Jun 10, 2012)

Huh?

We have negotiated royalties (in much the same way that directors, actors, writers, etc. have negotiated residuals). It's a separate argument, if architects or interior decorators can be smart enough to negotiate some residuals for themselves...more power to them. It still doesn't change my point.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 10, 2012)

midphase @ Sun Jun 10 said:


> Huh?
> 
> We have negotiated royalties (in much the same way that directors, actors, writers, etc. have negotiated residuals). It's a separate argument, if architects or interior decorators can be smart enough to negotiate some residuals for themselves...more power to them. It still doesn't change my point.


Of course it changes your point. None of the people you mentioned get Royalties. It's a huge difference. So we are not like them at all. We are more like directors, actors and writers, as you siad. I don't know anything residuals, so I can't comment on that.

What I can say though, is that in any other industry, when you are employed to create something, the Royalties go to the person who employed you, not the actual creator, so we, as composers, are in a unique position.

D


----------



## George Caplan (Jun 10, 2012)

Daryl @ Sun Jun 10 said:


> George Caplan @ Sun Jun 10 said:
> 
> 
> > daryl cant believe people pay him. :lol:
> ...



ok fantastic. i see you have a small combo playing there and i think thats a good idea for a lot of musicians whatever the flavor of their music. keep it smaller and get that sound.


----------



## midphase (Jun 10, 2012)

Daryl,

You're switching the argument, one is about whether we provide a commercial service (we do), the other is about whether such service is a buy-out or not (depends). But in either case, the latter does not invalidate the former.

Surely we can both agree that the guy who does music for this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMoyb5hEYEs

has a completely different career path than the guy who does music for this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8klW9trVTQ


----------



## Daryl (Jun 10, 2012)

George Caplan @ Sun Jun 10 said:


> Daryl @ Sun Jun 10 said:
> 
> 
> > George Caplan @ Sun Jun 10 said:
> ...


Actually I find that I get a better sound with a smaller section in Abbey Road 2. Even with a full orchestra the acoustic at Air Lyndhurst is rather overwhelming. For full orchestra my choice is Abbey Road 1.

D


----------



## Daryl (Jun 10, 2012)

midphase @ Sun Jun 10 said:


> Daryl,
> 
> You're switching the argument, one is about whether we provide a commercial service (we do), the other is about whether such service is a buy-out or not (depends). But in either case, the latter does not invalidate the former.


I just don't agree with that, and I think that some re-thinking about how services are charged for must be done, or the whole structure will come tumbling down. However, that is not really pertinent to this thread, I think.


midphase @ Sun Jun 10 said:


> Surely we can both agree that the guy who does music for this:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMoyb5hEYEs
> 
> ...


Yes, I think we can agree on that. :wink: 

D


----------



## guydoingmusic (Jun 10, 2012)

midphase @ Sun Jun 10 said:


> Daryl,
> 
> You're switching the argument, one is about whether we provide a commercial service (we do), the other is about whether such service is a buy-out or not (depends). But in either case, the latter does not invalidate the former.
> 
> ...



I don't see the difference? It's not the same guy doing both? _-) 

I'm kidding of course. My fav part of the second video. 1:48 - 1:59'ish.


----------



## doctornine (Jul 4, 2012)

midphase @ Sun Jun 10 said:


> Daryl,
> 
> You're switching the argument, one is about whether we provide a commercial service (we do), the other is about whether such service is a buy-out or not (depends). But in either case, the latter does not invalidate the former.
> 
> ...




hah, well I have to confess that my background is industrial music, and from that I got into doing library.

So er, my career path must be pretty strange :wink:


----------



## Desire Inspires (Aug 28, 2016)

I would personally stay away from...naw, I'll do almost any deal.

Some of these things pay nothing, some a little, and some a lot. I just try to get the music out to the marketplace and let the end users decide.

I can't do any more than that as a composer. I let the library work whatever magic it has to connect with clients and generate revenue.


----------



## SampleScience (Oct 25, 2016)

midphase said:


> You either call yourself (and behave) like a professional or you don't. Giving a library your music for no up front money is called doing "spec" work.



I know professionals who have both exclusive and non-exclusive music catalogs. Their non-exclusive catalog is on various music library websites publicly accessible. As far as I know, they are doing well.


----------



## SampleScience (Oct 25, 2016)

rgames said:


> Thank goodness everyone always tells the truth, especially on the internet...!
> 
> rgames



You can see their sales number on AudioJungle, it's written below each tracks.


----------



## doctornine (Oct 26, 2016)

Well it must be the truth then......


----------



## SampleScience (Oct 26, 2016)

doctornine said:


> Well it must be the truth then......



What makes you think it could be fake? Is there some kind of sleazy marketing technique I've never heard of that suggest doing this?


----------

