# Music libraries - is it still possible to make any profit?



## tiago (Dec 27, 2015)

Hi guys! As someone still with very little experience on working in the industry, I've been recently searching for all the different options that exist to work as a composer, including the stock / library music business. I've uploaded some non-exclusive tracks here and there using pseudonyms as an experiment, but only made very little sales. Most libraries seem to be already completely satured with music, with more thousands and thousands of tracks being added every month... As I know that some of you have written stock / library music, my main question is: Is it still possible to make considerable profit from uploading music to these sites (even if just as an additional income)? As an example, just earlier this week, a friend of mine told me to check out AudioSparx, as he had already made some of his tracks available there. When I checked their site yesterday, I was pretty much shocked to see that their catalog had more than 712k tracks on sale! How is it possible that someone will be able to find any of your tracks (let alone give you enough sales to make a living...) in such a HUGE catalog? I know that some of you would say that the exclusive, top tier, non-royalty free libraries are the ones that give real money to composers, but we all know that it is incredibly hard to get to them in an over-satured market (most of them aren't even taking any more submissions at the moment...). Is it better not to waste too much time in library music and just try to focus full-time on custom work? I would really appreciate your feedback on this matter. Cheers!


----------



## doctornine (Dec 27, 2015)

Is there money in library music : you pretty much answered the question. 

The cheap end of the market is saturated, the hi-end is very hard to get into.


----------



## Baron Greuner (Dec 27, 2015)

^^^ Jonathan is right but I must say that the exclusive PRO libraries can also be a bit of a lottery, seemingly to a lot of people.

What do I mean by that? Basically the feedback I get is usually to do with the tracks that are currently up by fairly established writers sitting in Exclusive libraries. Most think that they can do all of that and more. And they probably can!
The issues a lot of time that they don't think about are - what exactly do the PRO libraries want and maybe carrying more relevance, is what do they want _right now_. There's a ton of people out there that can write _for example _BIG, EPIC, MUSIC & TRAILERS. There's a ton of people who can write music suitable for Adventure and Fairyland if you like, and there's a ton of people out there that can write Ambient and so on and so on etc. There's an absolute monumental amount of writers out there that write HZ. You wouldn't believe how many. Some even sound like HZ on a good day.
And that's the trouble. Catch 22 in a way because a lot of writers write for one exclusive and then another - but they can do that because they are a known writer and have a track record. Very easy to check just by going onto the PRO sites and doing a search. In order to get into what you're looking for, you need to be really different and really good at what you do and above all, flexible if possible. Perhaps you are.

I scout for the library I represent. As an example, since the VI forum has been in existence, I've picked up 4 writers over that time and one just in the last few weeks but that's only because I know him personally and how highly recommended he is. 4 writers out of a forum full of 1000 plus writers. That isn't many is it? 

The exclusives are really, really fussy and tbh, they have to be. I probably wouldn't get into one today myself if I was just starting out.


----------



## Vin (Dec 27, 2015)

The key in the low end is volume. Meaning, several hundred tracks and more. This guy makes 100k+ mostly in royalty free: http://musiclibraryreport.com/forums/topic/dan-composer-interview/

The key in the high end is quality.


----------



## tiago (Dec 27, 2015)

Baron Greuner said:


> The exclusives are really, really fussy and tbh, they have to be. I probably wouldn't get into one today myself if I was just starting out.



Thanks a lot for your comment! It's very interesting from a composer's perspective to read the opinion of someone who represents a library. I really appreciate your honesty and, after reading what you wrote, I now have a much clearer vision of how things work in the music library business. I agree with you that the exclusives don't seem to be best option for a starter. I'll just keep working hard and try to get better at what I do, I'll focus on PRO libraries later on, when I feel like I'm really experienced enough to deal with them.



Vin said:


> The key in the low end is volume. Meaning, several hundred tracks and more.



It really seems like the only way to make a profit in the low-end is to have a huge amount of tracks. I really found that interview on musiclibraryreport to be very insightful, thanks for posting that!

I really appreciate the feedback so far, guys. Cheers!


----------



## RiffWraith (Dec 27, 2015)

tiago said:


> Music libraries - is it still possible to make any profit?



Yes.


----------



## RiffWraith (Dec 27, 2015)

Vin said:


> This guy makes 100k+ mostly in royalty free: http://musiclibraryreport.com/forums/topic/dan-composer-interview/



Don't believe everything you read. Esp. when someone does not use their last name.


----------



## RiffWraith (Dec 27, 2015)

tiago said:


> I agree with you that the exclusives don't seem to be best option for a starter.



They can be, but your stuff has to be top notch. And if you are a beginner, the chances of your stuff being top notch are slim to none. I mean, we all have to start somewhere. Even me!


----------



## rJames (Dec 27, 2015)

Tiago, find your voice. Listen to what is being used; how it is being used. Figure out WHY it is being used. Use common sense to figure out where the money is... Meaning don't spend a lot of time trying to make a few pennies. Write great music with great production value. Submit it to the best, most exclusive libraries you can find...as many as you can find. If you have something worthwhile they will help you hone it. Or they could just steal it (ideas, not music), which is why you submit to many libraries. Find how your voice fits in to a commercial music world. Then exploit that part of your talent.


----------



## Daryl (Dec 28, 2015)

Just to add to the good advice given by other posters, you need to figure out where your talents lie, what your competition is in that category, and whether or not your chosen library has the contacts to place your music where it needs to go.

For example, if the library gets most placements from wedding videos, websites, home videos, writing "epic" music is pointless.

However, I would stress what others have said. There is always a trade-off between quality and bulk. At the lower end of the market you only have the bulk option. At the upper end both can exist. However in that case you are in competition with people who spend £20K upwards on an album, so you need to write something that these guys (and I use that term in a non-sexist sense) aren't doing. And then you risk being unable to sell any licences. Aaarrrggghhhh...

Oh, and always use a pseudonym for libraries that don't actually care who wrote the music. 

D


----------



## Baron Greuner (Dec 28, 2015)

Yes a lot of us forget that we're up against writers that will spend that kind of money going to say, Prague and recording a whole album with live orchestral players. It's true to say that while you can write plenty of music in the orchestral vein and never go near a live orchestra, it's always going to be difficult to go up against a good live sound versus samples when the editors are looking in the same genre.

What I would also suggest to anyone wanting to place music in an exclusive environment, would be not to copy. RF writers copy all the time and that's a different game altogether. 

Plenty of times a library may well want HZ, Thomas Newman, JW styles ect but what is a good idea is to take those writers and then write something that has their inspiration behind it, yes, but come up with something that sounds totally and completely different. That sounds like nonsense, but happens all the time and becomes less difficult to do the more you practice.
Always remember that these writers never have to copy or imitate anyone, so your job in some ways is more difficult to pull off. 
Always remember that the last thing that any good library wants to avoid is going to court.


----------



## rgames (Dec 28, 2015)

In my experience, there are three factors: networking, quantity and luck. I have not found a definition of quality that suffices to predict what will and won't generate revenues (and I've discussed with a *lot* of supposed gurus over the years, all of whom claim to know the secret). Certainly if you're writing microtonal Ligeti-inspired music then it's not going to generate any money. But if it's even remotely commercial-sounding then it will sell given the right combination of networking, quantity and luck. There are lots of threads here on this topic.

When you're starting out, if you have 40 hours a week, don't spend 35 hours trying to write the perfect track and 5 hours on networking. Spend 20 hours writing 2 tracks and 20 hours networking. Once you've established a network (and gotten lucky) then you can spend more time on the tracks, should you so desire. But you don't have to. You can make money by continuing to focus on quantity.

Also in my experience, it takes only a little bit of networking and a little bit of luck and a couple hundred tracks to make some meaningful money in the library music world (low five figures USD). There are basically no barriers to entry so treat it as a side gig at first and see what happens. Beyond that, though, you really have you find a network and/or get lucky and/or write a lot of music.

And, of course, don't listen to / believe anything you read on the internet (the irony...). Seriously - ignore everyone and just do it. You don't need advice because everyone's path is different and there's basically no downside to trying. It's not like you're getting into the auto business where you have to invest millions of dollars to build factories. You just need some musical ideas and some time. It seems you already have those.

In my experience, the rest is networking, quantity and luck.

rgames


----------



## rgarber (Dec 28, 2015)

Sorry to butt in, but what are these "Music Libraries" you'all are referring to? - Rich


----------



## JimmyPoppa (Dec 28, 2015)

Hi Guys,

RGarber, I know there are lots of library threads. FYI: I'm not a library composer (so don't take my word as gospel) but have a pretty good idea of what everyone's talking about just from having been around the music industry most of my life. I'm sure somebody here will answer your question much better than can I.

Basically, there are many (many, many) services that offer already recorded music to TV, Film, Documentaries, Industrial and Business customers, etc. The services are called music libraries and they have a HUGE variety of available pieces of music that customers can get access to for their projects. These users can go online to a music library, search through the catalog of styles and pieces, and purchase the use of that piece for their project.

The music itself is created by composers and either sold or licensed to the libraries based on several different types of deals. Way back in 'the day,' the libraries might provide a band or even orchestra to play the music of these composers (or arrangers and orchestrators). This doesn't really happen any more. Nowadays, the writers have to provide finished product to the libraries.

The requirements of the music are usually pretty specific and quite different from normal composition. The pieces are used in 5 sec to 2 minute bites and have to fulfill the needs of customers who use them this way. Writing these well is a skill in itself.

This used to be a kind of lesser known part of the music industry and some people made very good money doing it. Now, the market is absolutely FLOODED with writers and the libraries really have the upper hand. This has led to a wide range of issues which you can search out for yourself and develop your own opinion about.

There are all sorts of variations on this subject and a wide range of different opinions about the various aspects of it. If you just do a search on this site, you'll find waaaaay more information than could possibly be contained in one post.

The real question, which was asked by the OP, is whether or not this is a viable way to make decent $$$ in today's environment. I won't even begin to try to answer that one.

Hope this helps give you an overview.

Be Well,

Jimmy


----------



## doctornine (Dec 28, 2015)

Baron Greuner said:


> I scout for the library I represent. .



So how many messages did you just get off the back of that little comment ? 

I'd venture your inbox may have suddenly got flooded


----------



## Baron Greuner (Dec 28, 2015)

doctornine said:


> So how many messages did you just get off the back of that little comment ?
> 
> I'd venture your inbox may have suddenly got flooded



Only the one and that was from Hans. Had to turn him down though because we're already flooded with high class copies. 


Glad you brought that up because I wouldn't answer them. I just listen around until something comes at you from left field.


----------



## Jerome Vonhogen (Dec 28, 2015)

Daryl said:


> Oh, and always use a pseudonym for libraries that don't actually care who wrote the music.


 

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by this. What difference would it make if you'd hide your real name? Why would you want to sell your music in the first place, if you don't even want to put your name above the score? Perhaps you don't want people to know that you've sold out to some shady used car salesman?

Personally, I don't see why anyone would even consider working with a library that doesn't care about the author of the music they sell.

My tip would be to keep your dayjob as long as possible, and ignore these libraries unless they're high end and they ask you to write music for them. Meanwhile, look for other ways to fill and monetize your portfolio.

- Jerome Vonhögen


----------



## Baron Greuner (Dec 28, 2015)

Jerome I think Daryl means RF.


----------



## Daryl (Dec 28, 2015)

Jerome Vonhogen said:


> I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by this. What difference would it make if you'd hide your real name? Why would you want to sell your music in the first place, if you don't even want to put your name above the score? Perhaps you don't want people to know that you've sold out to some shady used car salesman?


So you did understand. 

D


----------



## kclements (Dec 28, 2015)

Daryl said:


> So you did understand.
> 
> D



So, Daryl. How does this work with your PRO Registrations? I don't see a place to enter aliases with BMI. I'm not associated with any libraries that I don't want my name attached to, but I do see what you are saying. 

I did have some tracks with Pond5 but recently closed that account. Only made $25 in 2 years so figured why bother


----------



## Daryl (Dec 28, 2015)

kclements said:


> So, Daryl. How does this work with your PRO Registrations? I don't see a place to enter aliases with BMI.


I know nothing about BMI, but with PRS you apply for pseudonyms and then if the names are approved, you get a new CAE number attached to each of them. Then when you fill in a cue sheet or register your track, you do it under the pseudonym with its associated CAE number. I know a few composers who use this method for when they write for rival catalogues. It means that their "brand" with each is not diluted by being with more than one outlet.

D


----------



## Jerome Vonhogen (Dec 28, 2015)

Daryl said:


> So you did understand.


----------



## danielb (Dec 28, 2015)

Hello guys, well i can give my own experience on this... i began 2 years ago to put some music on some royalty free music, and i have to say i was so frustrated at the beginning ! 
you try to make a super song, you think it's a great one, and when it's accepted just wait hitting the f5 button to see if it's selling... and it wasn't going so great...
Hopefully my previous work was to make website, so i also made my own site to sell directly (http://www.musicincloud.com), because i was so frustrated that my songs got lost in the deep deep jungle... and in two years now it begins to be quiet nice...
Also at this period i began to do what i know the best, some gypsy jazz songs (i'm a gypsy jazz guitarist) and i was accepted in one more premium RF site that works only exclusively with a limited number of musician, and it began to be much much more better with this kind of music he didn't had...

So i would say YES it's possible to do great with RF site but it's really not that easy and you have to find your own way, a real originality and have a LOT of perseverance...


----------



## tiago (Dec 28, 2015)

rJames said:


> Use common sense to figure out where the money is... Meaning don't spend a lot of time trying to make a few pennies. Write great music with great production value. Submit it to the best, most exclusive libraries you can find...as many as you can find. If you have something worthwhile they will help you hone it.



Thanks for your comment! Currently I'm also considering low-end libraries mostly as a way to train my writing and production skills and to experiment with different genres without a lot of pressure. I'm one of those guys that would much rather make a living working 2-3 weeks on a single track and try to make it sound as good and original as possible, than making 5-7 tracks every week (even if I could make a bit more profit with the latter...). Once I feel 100% confident about my skills and experience and I've found that I've somewhat mastered a particular style of music, I'll try to focus only on the high-end part of the business.



Daryl said:


> Oh, and always use a pseudonym for libraries that don't actually care who wrote the music.



Thanks for the tip! I have also been hearing some stories of how library X didn't want to work with a certain composer if he was associated with library Y and stuff like that... It really seems that writers have to be very careful about the name that they use while working on the library music business.


----------



## kclements (Dec 28, 2015)

Daryl said:


> I know nothing about BMI, but with PRS you apply for pseudonyms and then if the names are approved, you get a new CAE number attached to each of them. Then when you fill in a cue sheet or register your track, you do it under the pseudonym with its associated CAE number. I know a few composers who use this method for when they write for rival catalogues. It means that their "brand" with each is not diluted by being with more than one outlet.
> 
> D



Thanks! I'm a long way off from needing this kind of separation but it's good to know how some are doing this. I'll check with BMI when the time comes. 

Cheers 
kc


----------



## tiago (Dec 28, 2015)

rgames said:


> When you're starting out, if you have 40 hours a week, don't spend 35 hours trying to write the perfect track and 5 hours on networking. Spend 20 hours writing 2 tracks and 20 hours networking. Once you've established a network (and gotten lucky) then you can spend more time on the tracks, should you so desire. But you don't have to. You can make money by continuing to focus on quantity.



Thanks for the feedback! I must confess that I never really understood how important networking was for a composer just untill very recently. I completely understand what you're trying to say with that comment, because it really seems that, even if a composer has an amazing track, it won't be worth much if he doesn't know the right people to promote and sell it. I would rather focus on quality instead of quantity in the future, if I have somehow managed to esbalished a network, but for now I'll try to find the right balance between making enough music and networking.


----------



## tiago (Dec 28, 2015)

Baron Greuner said:


> Plenty of times a library may well want HZ, Thomas Newman, JW styles ect but what is a good idea is to take those writers and then write something that has their inspiration behind it, yes, but come up with something that sounds totally and completely different. That sounds like nonsense, but happens all the time and becomes less difficult to do the more you practice.



That doesn't sound like nonsense at all! I completely agree with every word you said. I always thought that you should learn as much as possible from the masters, but use that knowledge to create something new and original, and not to simply copy the works of others.


----------



## Baron Greuner (Dec 28, 2015)

tiago said:


> That doesn't sound like nonsense at all! I completely agree with every word you said. I always thought that you should learn as much as possible from the masters, but use that knowledge to create something new and original, and not to simply copy the works of others.



Thanks for your comments. What I would stress again that if anyone submits let's say, extremely similar tracks that sound like well known film writers it would need to be outstanding, similar but different, because they are awash with those kind of submissions. It's unlikely that you'll get very far submitting Bernard Hermann type tracks for instance.
Another issue is the key you write in. Because the nature of library music can appear fairly homogeneous, it's very common and indeed easier for most people to write in a minor key. Why that is I really couldn't say. Beware of too many minor key tracks. Happy, upbeat tracks to almost positive, neutral get used a lot more than slow, fairly turgid minor key tracks. It's not that they're any better, it's more of what TV generally wants and a good starting point.

One way of writing tracks for a library that mostly really concentrates on TV, is to get something like SnapzPro and load up a video into your DAW with the sound wiped off. The video could be of anything that originally required music, like say an advert, documentary, a newsreel, and so on. And don't forget to leave gaps every now and again and have quieter passages for dialogue. You would see that on the video for instance. That can be the nature of library tracks. By the time you get to track 10 you'll know whether it's for you or not.


----------



## rgarber (Dec 28, 2015)

JimmyPoppa said:


> .... Basically, there are many (many, many) services that offer already recorded music to TV, Film, Documentaries, Industrial and Business customers, etc. The services are called music libraries and they have a HUGE variety of available pieces of music that customers can get access to for their projects. These users can go online to a music library, search through the catalog of styles and pieces, and purchase the use of that piece for their project....



Thanks Jimmy, that was a great read, really helpful for me to understand what was being discussed. Thx again! - Rich


----------



## rgames (Dec 28, 2015)

tiago said:


> I completely understand what you're trying to say with that comment, because it really seems that, even if a composer has an amazing track, it won't be worth much if he doesn't know the right people to promote and sell it. I would rather focus on quality instead of quantity in the future, if I have somehow managed to esbalished a network, but for now I'll try to find the right balance between making enough music and networking.


One of my biggest single placements to date was for a track that I don't even have on my website, SoundCloud page or YouTube channel because I think it's crap. It was recorded as a demo for a collection, rejected (by me) and left to fester on my hard drive. Good riddance, I thought. Well, a library asked if I had any more tracks in that collection. So I said "Well, yeah, but it's a demo that I never finished. Production quality is not very good and the performance is not very good, either. Plus, the arrangement needs work." Well, they wanted it. And they got it and it's been generating decent money (four figures).

But I still think it's crap.

Harrison Ford thinks Star Wars is crap.

You can't make sense of it, so don't try. Just enjoy the ride! If your goal is to make money then make a lot of friends who can use your music, write a lot of music and don't second-guess yourself.

rgames


----------



## Jerome Vonhogen (Dec 29, 2015)

rgames said:


> don't second-guess yourself.


 

Are you sure?


----------



## Baron Greuner (Dec 29, 2015)

Looking forward to hearing that track of yours Richard.

Any time you're ready, stick it up.


----------



## rgames (Dec 29, 2015)

Baron Greuner said:


> Looking forward to hearing that track of yours Richard.
> 
> Any time you're ready, stick it up.


http://vi-control.net/community/threads/working-for-music-libraries.37038/page-2#post-3773558

Here you go: post 31 from that 2014 thread. Along with another example of crap that's making four figures, so there are two examples. I could go on...

The bottom line is that trying to censor yourself is not productive. You can't predict what will and won't generate revenue. But you can be sure that your odds increase with networking, quantity and luck. So put your focus there.

rgames

EDIT: apparently the links no longer work in the old thread, so here's an update:

Crap that generates good money: http://www.rgamesmusic.com/clients/Temp/Chopin_Waltz_Op_69_No_2_Clar_and_Strings.mp3

Similar "quality" track that generates little money: 

More crap in a different genre that generates good money:


----------



## rJames (Dec 29, 2015)

richard's post brings up a couple of points.
I don't think either of those cues were written by Richard. I may be wrong cause I looked at the other thread that led me to the movie where it licensed. And I think it was a classical composer. 
The 2 points are that clever versions of music that is in the public domain can make you money. 
And that the clients are not all very discriminating. As Richard said, he was not happy with that particular cue. 
For me, I could only write and arrange original works. But, in any case, it is all about treating it like a business. Analyze, think, target. 
You can be an artist, you can make money, but you have to treat it like a business.


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Dec 29, 2015)

rgames said:


> http://vi-control.net/community/threads/working-for-music-libraries.37038/page-2#post-3773558
> 
> Here you go: post 31 from that 2014 thread. Along with another example of crap that's making four figures, so there are two examples. I could go on...
> 
> ...



I like that.


----------



## rgames (Dec 29, 2015)

rJames said:


> richard's post brings up a couple of points.
> I don't think either of those cues were written by Richard. I may be wrong cause I looked at the other thread that led me to the movie where it licensed. And I think it was a classical composer.


Hadn't thought about that but you're right - those examples were all arrangements. However, I can go through my library and pull out original tracks that follow the same pattern - some stuff I really like doesn't make much money and and some stuff I don't like that does. Of course, there's stuff I like that does make money and stuff I don't like that doesn't.

The point is that I can't find a correlation between what I like (is that the definition of "quality"?) and what makes money. Nor have I found anyone else who can make that prediction (with the caveat in my earlier post).

Just like Harrison Ford and Star Wars (though a different order of magnitude...!).

rgames


----------



## Baron Greuner (Dec 29, 2015)

Wow Rich this not crap. At this very moment all the waitresses and ladies of Waitrose are loving this piece of whimsy. One even asked if you were English? ( I said almost certainly) 
Marvellous stuff! Awesome!




Edit: Loving Epic Jingle Bells here.


----------



## dannymc (Dec 29, 2015)

i liked it too  if Danny Elfman done something similar in nightmare before Christmas we'd all be applauding him. 

Danny


----------



## rgames (Dec 29, 2015)

Well, there you go. The Jingle Bells track is kinda fun but I'm not going to play it for my grandkids as an example of my what I consider my "good" music. I guess it was what the library was looking for, though.

I think we censor ourselves out of a fear of failure. "What if nobody likes my music?"

Well, what if they do?

If your goal is to make money, it's better to let the market decide because you're going to have failures regardless of what you do. If you put your self-described failures out there at least you'll make some money off of them, thereby offsetting the money you lose on the tracks you thought were going to do well.

Also, the failures that succeed feel a lot better than the successes that fail!

rgames


----------



## rJames (Dec 29, 2015)

Richard's take on Jingle Bells demonstrates my philosophy about why music sells.
Its all about the "idea." I also don't know why you would call that "crap," maybe just because it is more "idea," and arrangement than it is about writing. But it is ideas that sell.
If you think its more likely to license a big orchestral piece that you're proud of or a banjo and tuba playing Strauss, then you're not watching TV or listening to radio. (OK, maybe a bad example)


----------



## kclements (Dec 29, 2015)

It's one of the things I like about doing library music. The mystery of it all. We don't know what will work at any given time. 

And yes, we all will have failures. But that's just part of the game. It's what makes this such a great industry to be a part of. Or at least that's how I see it.

Cheers 
kc


----------



## tiago (Dec 30, 2015)

Baron Greuner said:


> It's unlikely that you'll get very far submitting Bernard Hermann type tracks for instance.



That's definitely true! Can't really think of much reasons why anyone would license such tracks these days... which is a shame, really! I absolutely love Hermann's scores. 



Baron Greuner said:


> Another issue is the key you write in. Because the nature of library music can appear fairly homogeneous, it's very common and indeed easier for most people to write in a minor key. Why that is I really couldn't say. Beware of too many minor key tracks. Happy, upbeat tracks to almost positive, neutral get used a lot more than slow, fairly turgid minor key tracks.



It's interesting that you've mentioned that because I've also mostly written minor key tracks so far. I've also noticed that all the "corporate" library tracks that I've listened to so far were written in a major key, but I must confess that I'm really not very fond of that kind of music and wouldn't like to compose stuff like that. There are, nonetheless, other genres that I think that could work very well in a major key, upbeat mood and I'll be very happy to experiment with that. Thanks for the advice!


----------



## tiago (Dec 30, 2015)

rgames said:


> The bottom line is that trying to censor yourself is not productive. You can't predict what will and won't generate revenue. But you can be sure that your odds increase with networking, quantity and luck. So put your focus there.[/MEDIA]



Thanks for the advice, Richard! The fact that the library business is so unpredictable is really great for creativity. Since I don't really know what will sell, it's better to just have fun writing music that I enjoy writing instead of trying to please a certain standard and then becoming much more frustrated if it doesn't end up selling anyways.


----------



## Baron Greuner (Dec 30, 2015)

tiago said:


> That's definitely true! Can't really think of much reasons why anyone would license such tracks these days... which is a shame, really! I absolutely love Hermann's scores.



I tend to fall into the trap of trying to write music that sounds like the 'opening titles' of something. Bernard Herrmann was one of the kings of the opening titles. Most people usually refer Herrmann to his opening titles and they are some of the best on the planet. What Herrmann was fantastic at was setting a mood, writing music that perfectly went with the times, the scene and the film, and was a genius at spotting a film. Hitchcock owes a lot to Herrmann. Herrmann sort of wrote library music too btw. He came over to the college twice as far as I know. I missed him the first time but caught him the second time. Very funny guy and extremely knowledgable.

I would go back to writing to videos and allowing for dialogue when doing a lot of library style music, as previously mentioned.




tiago said:


> It's interesting that you've mentioned that because I've also mostly written minor key tracks so far. I've also noticed that all the "corporate" library tracks that I've listened to so far were written in a major key, but I must confess that I'm really not very fond of that kind of music and wouldn't like to compose stuff like that. There are, nonetheless, other genres that I think that could work very well in a major key, upbeat mood and I'll be very happy to experiment with that. Thanks for the advice!



Corporate library tracks? Not sure I understand what that is. If you mean the RF style of pinging guitar rubbish on 3 to 4 chords then I think I know what you mean.

Minor keys do not necessarily mean a track is going to sound dour. Or slow or turgid. The minor key can even sound upbeat and positive but it's a lot more difficult to get that early on imho. Switching between minor and major within a track is a good idea if you can make it work because it adds interest. Also the occasional time signature change and tempo change can work.
Good guitarists when for example, playing lead breaks very often switch from the Pentatonic minor to the Pentatonic major without anyone noticing. It all adds to the interest for the listener.
Whatever the editor thinks will work to picture is the main thing.

Good luck with your quest going forward and I think that you're 90% of the way there because you _want_ to do it.


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 30, 2015)

@BvG Very good work, Mr. ()  as far as I can listen to it, that is. Funnily enough I experience a lot of playback stutters with (all) your examples while other SoundCloud stuff runs smoothly here. Am I the only one/any solutions?

Edit: I stand corrected, other SoundCloud stuff runs as stuttering ...


----------



## tiago (Dec 30, 2015)

Baron Greuner said:


> Corporate library tracks? Not sure I understand what that is. If you mean the RF style of pinging guitar rubbish on 3 to 4 chords then I think I know what you mean.



Yes, that's exactly what I meant.



Baron Greuner said:


> Here's some examples of minor to major and so on with differing moods, time sigs etc. some repetitive and unmixed and so on just to to keep Richard company, I even chucked in a wedding/real estate video 3 chord wonder



Those five tracks that you've posted sound terrific! I get what you're saying with the key changes, they really do make the music feel more "colourful" and interesting.



Baron Greuner said:


> Good luck with your quest going forward and I think that you're 90% of the way there because you _want_ to do it.



Thanks for the kind words! I'm really grateful for all the great feedback that I've received so far on this thread, it has really helped me get a clearer vision of how things work in the industry and how I should approach library work.


----------



## rgarber (Dec 30, 2015)

Sorry to butt in again.... So you guys are creating original tracks or arrangements of something and then you submit your work to a music library hoping somebody uses your piece in something, right? You're not being tasked with a "I want something lazy sounding" assignment - rather you make something up and hope it flies. - Rich


----------



## sleepy hollow (Dec 30, 2015)

rgarber said:


> You're not being tasked with a "I want something lazy sounding" assignment - rather you make something up and hope it flies.


It's both actually. Sometimes you write stuff, submit a bunch of tracks and the library picks their favorites. Other times you receive some sort of briefing ('Write acoustic tunes with mandoline and stupid hand claps'). The library then releases that as an album ('Fake Happiness 2015').


----------



## Jerome Vonhogen (Dec 31, 2015)

sleepy hollow said:


> It's both actually. Sometimes you write stuff, submit a bunch of tracks and the library picks their favorites. Other times you receive some sort of briefing ('Write acoustic tunes with mandoline and stupid hand claps'). The library then releases that as an album ('Fake Happiness 2015').





Sorry, but that sounds like prostitution...


----------



## Daryl (Dec 31, 2015)

Jerome Vonhogen said:


> Sorry, but that sounds like prostitution...


Of course it is. What planet are you living on? Commercial music is all about prostitution. If you want to avoid getting shafted for money, write art, not commercial music. 

D


----------



## GULL (Dec 31, 2015)

Jerome Vonhogen said:


> Sorry, but that sounds like prostitution...




Sorry, but it is the only way technically every business works


----------



## Jerome Vonhogen (Dec 31, 2015)

GULL said:


> Sorry, but it is the only way technically every business works


 

I just watched 'Fight for Freedom: Confronting Modern-Day Slavery' on CNN, a debate organised by Harvard University and the CNN Freedom Project about the fight against human trafficking in America.

Did you know we can actually fight back to end modern slavery? We could also stop uploading crap so we don't have to hide behind pseudonyms anymore. 

Stop feeding the monster and it will starve.

- Jerome Vonhögen


----------



## Daryl (Dec 31, 2015)

Uploading crap has nothing to do with slavery. You don't have to upload your crap. You could always get a proper job.


----------



## stonzthro (Dec 31, 2015)

Jerome, you must be joking - in a weird and elitist way, yes? 

Prostitution and slavery to the free market...


----------



## rJames (Dec 31, 2015)

Wow, Jerome. Do I detect a bit of jealousy? I thought your post about prostitution was another attempt at subtle humor. I didn't realize that this was a sore point with you.
The truth is that library music does not compete with a competent composer. If you (or anyone) is competing against library music then you're in the wrong business (and writing for libraries could be for you).
There are a lot of programs that cannot be scored, and more where the producer has just chosen to use pre-produced music.
Daryl already explained that pseudonyms are sometimes used to create a separation between a composer's material written for different clients.
BTW much of the crap that is flooding the market is by people who think their crap is quality work. Its not your place or my place to tell them to get out of the business just because they don't know their work is crap. And if it licenses, then who's fault is that? Its not the artists' fault.
The business is going through an evolution where the tools of the trade have come down in price and made it possible for anyone (yes, it seems like everyone) to become a "composer."
The cream always rises to the top. Don't worry about anyone else.
But evolution is not predictable. It may turn out that editors will take over the "library music," composition business if they are adept at buying "one-finger," sample libraries. Just to be clear, its my position that these sample libraries are what is ruining the music business... not the artists.
Speaking of prostitution; if you are willing to score an entire movie for $5K, working for someone who doesn't know the difference between a French horn and an English horn; and would rather do that than composing what you want to compose, on your own schedule and then wait for the $5K to come rolling in... well, then we have a different definition of prostitution.
Ron


----------



## Jerome Vonhogen (Dec 31, 2015)

stonzthro said:


> Jerome, you must be joking - in a weird and elitist way, yes?


 

I may be weird, but I'm definitely not elitist, snobbish, or highbrow. I'm just too intellectual, high cultured, and sophisticated for that title. 

- Jerome Vonhögen


----------



## Baron Greuner (Dec 31, 2015)

tiago said:


> Those five tracks that you've posted sound terrific! I get what you're saying with the key changes, they really do make the music feel more "colourful" and interesting.



Heheh! That's very good of you to say so and appreciated and also from Hannes too. Was hoping Daryl would stick one up for you because it's usually a bit of a treat and a rarity. 

When I talk about keys, I'm not necessarily talking about key changes _within _a piece of music, like going up a semi-tone or a tone for instance (modulation if you like), although a key change within pieces is pretty common. One the guys on the library I'm on key changes in a piece quite a bit and whenever I hear one of his pieces I wait for it, and when it comes I always laugh to myself. Good fun. You've got to have fun doing this or it can become quite wearisome.

No, it's more to do with major/minor rather than modulating keys. It's difficult to explain in writing. I'll stick some more genres up for you when I get a chance.


----------



## Baron Greuner (Dec 31, 2015)

Jerome Vonhogen said:


> I may be weird, but I'm definitely not elitist, snobbish, or highbrow. I'm just too intellectual, high cultured, and sophisticated for that title.
> 
> - Jerome Vonhögen



Jerome I don't know what your game is on this thread, but if you carry on like this you'll be soundly spanked and sent up the wooden hill to Bedfordshire without any supper on this New Year's Eve!


----------



## stonzthro (Dec 31, 2015)

Jerome Vonhogen said:


> I may be weird, but I'm definitely not elitist, snobbish, or highbrow. I'm just too intellectual, high cultured, and sophisticated for that title.
> 
> - Jerome Vonhögen


Here's a better joke - how do you make a composer complain? Give him a job...

I'm here all week folks, and HAPPY NEW YEAR!


----------



## Jerome Vonhogen (Dec 31, 2015)

rJames said:


> Wow, Jerome. Do I detect a bit of jealousy? I thought your post about prostitution was another attempt at subtle humor. I didn't realize that this was a sore point with you.


 

It isn't! 
As a matter of fact, I agree with everything you say. I couldn't have said it better!

I have great respect for everyone trying to break into the music and film business, especially if they manage to reinvent themselves over and over again by changing their strategy, their goals, and are brave enough to adjust their expectations if life decides to go another route. I think they are the real professionals.

Just to prevent any misunderstanding, apart from composer and producer, I'm also a political cartoonist. I know that I have to be careful with what I say (especially since English is not my native language), but sometimes I might just hit the 'post'-button a little too early. I confess! Anyway, just don't shoot me, please! 

- Jerome Vonhögen


----------



## JimmyPoppa (Dec 31, 2015)

rgarber said:


> Thanks Jimmy, that was a great read, really helpful for me to understand what was being discussed. Thx again! - Rich



You're quite welcome.


----------



## JimmyPoppa (Dec 31, 2015)

rgarber said:


> Sorry to butt in again.... So you guys are creating original tracks or arrangements of something and then you submit your work to a music library hoping somebody uses your piece in something, right? You're not being tasked with a "I want something lazy sounding" assignment - rather you make something up and hope it flies. - Rich



Unless you already have developed a relationship with a library, you are usually creating and submitting original tracks. There are definitely parameters for what a particular library is looking for or tends to accept. You can find this out with some time and effort. Also, keep in mind that the market is truly over saturated and, while some of the material is worthless, a lot is very, very good both in terms of quality of composition and of production.

Here's a bit more basic info:

http://www.ascap.com/eventsawards/e...oduction-music-libraries-and-your-career.aspx

http://filmandgamecomposers.com/guides/common-music-library-questions/

http://www.pyragraph.com/2013/04/licensing-your-work-to-music-libraries/

There's a LOT more out there if you want to search.

Be Well,

Jimmy


----------



## rgarber (Dec 31, 2015)

Hi Jimmy and thanks for the information and links, much appreciated. Mostly I am curious just to sort of have an understanding of this stuff, I really hadn't considered trying to join in the fun. It's curious though to think a relatively new dimension in making music sound as good as it can using Samples, can be so saturated already. Is it because you find yourselves competing with live music makers? - Rich


----------



## Daryl (Jan 1, 2016)

rgarber said:


> It's curious though to think a relatively new dimension in making music sound as good as it can using Samples, can be so saturated already. Is it because you find yourselves competing with live music makers? - Rich


Library music has been around for over 100 years in one form or another. It's just that with the explosion of cheap samples at the start of this century, everyone and their dog now thinks they are a composer. There are plenty of opportunities, but for every track written, there are hundreds of thousands of similar sounding tracks to choose from. As many clients at the bottom end of the industry can't tell good from bad, they will always go for the cheapest or the most convenient.

Which is why my advice is always to write something that other people aren't doing. There are fewer opportunities for usage, but far less competition. This is also the reason why people who only use samples will find it very difficult to break into the top tier for certain sorts of music. They just can't compete with real orchestras and bands.

D


----------



## Baron Greuner (Jan 1, 2016)

@rgarber

The first track I ever wrote was © 1970 and was submitted for a BBC TV political discussion programme. It was for the titles/ending as obviously no music was going to be used during any talking. I didn't get the gig and came second. There were only 3 TV channels back then and getting gigs was harder. But the music became a library thing. I was still at college and was trying to make some extra money. So I went down to the studio in Fulham with some friends and we did a trio piece. Nothing new in library works at all.


----------



## rgarber (Jan 1, 2016)

Thanks Baron and Daryl. Then if you don't mind me asking, are these libraries, are they not very particular regarding the authenticity of the music they're getting? I've seen posts where some agencies (if that's the right word) will have a request needing the music within hours. What do they expect to get in just a few hours notice and why leave such a request to the last minute like that? Just asking... - Rich


----------



## Daryl (Jan 1, 2016)

rgarber said:


> What do they expect to get in just a few hours notice...


They expect a fully orchestrated/arranged/mixed/mastered composition of the highest quality, usually from multiple people so that they have a choice of music.



rgarber said:


> ...and why leave such a request to the last minute like that?


Because like most producers/agencies they can't make a decision and are so busy talking amongst themselves and asking focus groups for opinions that they only realise at the last minute that they actually have no music.

D


----------



## Sebastianmu (Jan 1, 2016)

sleepy hollow said:


> 'Fake Happiness 2015'


I'd love to buy this!


----------



## doctornine (Jan 1, 2016)

Daryl said:


> They expect a fully orchestrated/arranged/mixed/mastered composition of the highest quality, usually from multiple people so that they have a choice of music.
> 
> 
> Because like most producers/agencies they can't make a decision and are so busy talking amongst themselves and asking focus groups for opinions that they only realise at the last minute that they actually have no music.
> ...



And lets not forget the other classic : "oh, the original artist wants how many thousand quid for the piece we've being using as a temp track ? Um, better get a library track instead. Oh, wait, we need it inside 4 hours."

Such is life


----------



## Baron Greuner (Jan 2, 2016)

rgarber said:


> Thanks Baron and Daryl. Then if you don't mind me asking, are these libraries, are they not very particular regarding the authenticity of the music they're getting? Rich



I'm not entirely sure I understand the question. The genres are vast and varied.


----------



## rgarber (Jan 2, 2016)

Baron Greuner said:


> I'm not entirely sure I understand the question. The genres are vast and varied. Here for example is the trio piece and I'm pretty sure it's authentic, albeit slightly aged in the wood now.




Hi Baron,

Oh, I should have explained that better. What I was referring to when I wrote that was in my head I was thinking "four hours isn't very long to produce a polished piece." I tend to think how I do things and all my work is mostly inputted by hand with the mouse, I mean. I can't imagine making a piece from scratch and working it up in under four hours. Usually takes me three weeks (then again I have cats who wouldn't hesitate to explain I serve them first...) to get a piece done, rendered, and ready to go. But I can afford to be laid back since I do everything myself including the sale of my work. 

By authentic I mean "good enough" to hopefully fool even the best instrumentalist that if I don't tell them the work is sample based they don't even reflect if it's done by real musicians or not. 

My assumption is I'm assuming that the folks who manage these libraries are looking for that kind of precision (i.e. authenticity) in the music they catalog - that it sounds good enough to "fool" most. Not the best choice of words to explain what I mean. I think of what we do is like what CGI is for movies.

Rich


----------



## Baron Greuner (Jan 2, 2016)

I see what you're saying. But I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding. Nobody is trying to fool anyone. A piece is just that. Doesn't matter whether it's real players or not. If everything had to be real players in library music for instance, there would hardly be any library music out there today.
In other words, it's probably best that whether it's real or what you would describe as 'not real', that it sounds good, or if you prefer, usable in a media context.
Trying to do what a real player ensemble does with synths and samples is a waste of time and visa versa. You just need get material that's acceptable as a piece of music, regardless.


----------



## rgarber (Jan 2, 2016)

Baron Greuner said:


> I see what you're saying. But I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding. Nobody is trying to fool anyone. A piece is just that. Doesn't matter whether it's real players or not. If everything had to be real players in library music for instance, there would hardly be any library music out there today.
> In other words, it's probably best that whether it's real or what you would describe as 'not real', that it sounds good, or if you prefer, usable in a media context.
> Trying to do what a real player ensemble does with synths and samples is a waste of time and visa versa. You just need get material that's acceptable as a piece of music, regardless.



Thanks for your input on that, that's real interesting to me. It really is especially if that's how libraries look at what we do. Generally what drives me nuts is the first words out of a listeners mouth if they know I did the music doing samples is something like "I can tell the clarinet is fake..." or something like that. Drives me nuts because then I have to explain nothing is faked since the sample itself is a recording of somebody real.

Rich


----------



## Baron Greuner (Jan 2, 2016)

Is that a real Hammond organ I'm playing or a virtual one? Does it matter to the average listener who may not be a musician. How many musicians do know that are fake ones?
The type of music that is being discussed here on this thread is commercially used library music. That generally means, but not always, that it will be submerged beneath dialogue and extraneous noises. It's not a good idea to use that as an excuse of course, and therefore not get it to sound as good as you can.

But this issue with people that are listening out to see if it's real or sampled can give a professional a bit of a headache because it's mostly irrelevant. The issue of getting samples to sound more and more realistic is down to sample developers. Let them worry about that. Speed is probably more important than any of that.
For instance, a lot of string based music today is just basically rock music with a different sound. Real players arms and hands would fall off if they had to play a lot of it.

Most of what I hear these days on TV and even films is sampled and as long as it's doing what it's meant to do, it doesn't worry me. What worries me is rubbishy music that doesn't work, which we're all capable of.


----------



## tiago (Jan 2, 2016)

Baron Greuner said:


> Most of what I hear these days on TV and even films is sampled and as long as it's doing what it's meant to do, it doesn't worry me. What worries me is rubbishy music that doesn't work, which we're all capable of.



Exactly! I think that the fact that everyone can easily have access to sampled intruments these days is truly amazing because now the only thing that really matters is the writers' creativity. Everyone can get the same tools for a fairly cheap price and not as much people are favoured because they can spend a lot of money and hire musicians to perform their compositions. Sure, live musicians sound better than samples, but it is very hard (sometimes nearly impossible...) to notice the difference if the software is used correctly. It also depends on the musical genre, but if you are producing an epic hybrid action trailer, does it really matter if those staccato strings playing in the background are performed by real people and not programmed? The thing that is very bad for composers in the low-mid end music library business is that a lot of badly produced music with very badly treated samples is able to get through the "quality control", which seems to result in the saturation of the libraries and good tracks are pretty much buried in the hundreds of thousands of others available, so it's incredibly hard to establish any sort of steady income for the writers. I think that technology is a great thing for music and art in general and I've always followed the idea that "if it sounds good, it's good". And samples these days can sound REALLY good.


----------



## geoffreyvernon (Jan 7, 2016)

it's definitely still possible to make money with licensing music. just write kick ass music and the bigger libraries will eventually find it and pick it up. it's not really a "lottery" to get into the bigger libraries. you just have to write kick ass music that is able to be sold, licensed and used in trailers.


----------



## Jerome Vonhogen (Jan 7, 2016)

geoffreyvernon said:


> it's definitely still possible to make money with licensing music. just write kick ass music and the bigger libraries will eventually find it and pick it up. it's not really a "lottery" to get into the bigger libraries. you just have to write kick ass music that is able to be sold, licensed and used in trailers.


 

There's one thing I still don't get.

The moment you post your 'kick ass music' on a YouTube channel that has an AdSense account connected to it, your music will be fingerprinted by Google's Content ID system and becomes worthless to any music library.

If you post your 'kick ass music' elsewhere, someone else will put it on his or her YouTube channel, making your track instantly worthless as a result of the automatic fingerprinting process, which tags your track permanently for future reference, even if you report the video and even after Google blocks that video because of copyright infringement.

I read that some libraries won't even consider hiring you if you ever signed up for an AdSense account.

Now here's the problem: if you decide not to upload your 'kick ass music' anywhere in order to protect it so it will remain valuable to music libraries, those libraries won't know your music and will therefore never ever contact you.

Google's Content ID copyright protection system seems to work great for studios, producers and successful artists, but for (emerging) composers like us, the remedy appears to be worse than the disease.

Any thoughts on this?

- Jerome Vonhögen


----------



## Daryl (Jan 7, 2016)

If you are the Publisher, you do the content ID yourself. You are right that many of the big Publishers won't use that track, but it doesn't mean that you won't be commissioned for another track. You'll find that the same thing applies to Soundcloud. Post a track, some Publishers won't take it.

However, if you can only come up with a few good tracks you might as well forget becoming a professional composer. For a professional there should always be more tracks for you to write. If not, you retire.

Edit: I also meant to say that if a Publisher does decide to take the track on, there are many ways of dealing with it. Firstly the Publishing rights can always be assigned to a new Publisher and in any case the YouTube collection right doesn't have to be signed away. You can hang onto that.

D


----------



## Jerome Vonhogen (Jan 7, 2016)

Thanks for explaining, Daryl.



Daryl said:


> (...) if you can only come up with a few good tracks you might as well forget becoming a professional composer. For a professional there should always be more tracks for you to write. If not, you retire.


 

It's not like that. It's about studio recordings with full orchestra. Because of the investment involved, it's not the kind of tracks you make on a daily basis, as you will understand. For high quality libraries however, tracks like these may be the most interesting and most valuable ones.

If I would turn these tracks into demo's for my portfolio, I would have to go back to the studio to record new ones with the same production quality, the moment a company or producer would be interested in my music. I can't offer a live orchestra and then deliver a virtual orchestra instead. That would be misleading, wouldn't it?



Daryl said:


> You are right that many of the big Publishers won't use that track, but it doesn't mean that you won't be commissioned for another track. You'll find that the same thing applies to Soundcloud. Post a track, some Publishers won't take it.
> (...)
> YouTube collection right doesn't have to be signed away. You can hang onto that.


 

Isn't that a contradiction?

- Jerome Vonhögen


----------



## geoffreyvernon (Jan 7, 2016)

Jerome Vonhogen said:


> There's one thing I still don't get.
> 
> The moment you post your 'kick ass music' on a YouTube channel that has an AdSense account connected to it, your music will be fingerprinted by Google's Content ID system and becomes worthless to any music library.
> 
> ...



Daryl is absolutely right in what he's said. Some publishers won't take material if it's been on soundcloud as well as Adrev. Exclusivity is a thing publishers love in this game. Because their clients love it. They love music available to them, that's not available elsewhere. Daryl said it best. He's also right that if you're a professional composer, you will always have tracks to write. That means even if you have tracks that some libraries won't take, if they like your style and its able to sell you can definitely get commissioned to write new material with and for their library. which happens all the time anyways. Also, the fact of whether or not it's a studio track with live musicians or samples usually doesn't matter. I know of major libraries that have accepted midi mockups and then had them recorded live for a release. I also know of companies that take mockups and stems, have them professionally mixed and mastered and use those versions. It all goes back to writing kick ass music that is usable.


----------



## Daryl (Jan 7, 2016)

Jerome Vonhogen said:


> It's not like that. It's about studio recordings with full orchestra. Because of the investment involved, it's not the kind of tracks you make on a daily basis, as you will understand. For high quality libraries however, tracks like these may be the most interesting and most valuable ones.
> 
> If I would turn these tracks into demo's for my portfolio, I would have to go back to the studio to record new ones with the same production quality, the moment a company or producer would be interested in my music. I can't offer a live orchestra and then deliver a virtual orchestra instead. That would be misleading, wouldn't it?


In my experience no library will give you any full orchestra tracks to write unless you already have a sizeable reputation. In which case, whilst they might be sort of interested in you as a composer, you won't be getting an orchestra first time out. You will also find that unless you have already recorded all the 60s, 30s, stings etc. the tracks would be useless to a high end library, and that's leaving out the fact that most of the top ones commission to a very detailed brief; they don't use already existing tracks.

As far as using tracks for your portfolio, of course you should have some live orchestra, but unless you are in the position to refuse sample based gigs, you should include sample compositions as well. If a producer wants live orchestra, they can have it. They just have to pay for it.

I don't understand your contradiction question. If you try to re-phrase it, I'll try to answer.

D


----------



## Jerome Vonhogen (Jan 7, 2016)

Daryl said:


> In my experience no library will give you any full orchestra tracks to write unless you already have a sizeable reputation. In which case, whilst they might be sort of interested in you as a composer, you won't be getting an orchestra first time out. You will also find that unless you have already recorded all the 60s, 30s strings etc. the tracks would be useless to a high end library, and that's leaving out the fact that most of the top ones commission to a very detailed brief; they don't use already existing tracks.
> 
> As far as using tracks for your portfolio, of course you should have some live orchestra, but unless you are in the position to refuse sample based gigs, you should include sample compositions as well. If a producer wants live orchestra, they can have it. They just have to pay for it.
> 
> ...


 

Thanks Daryl,

The way you explain everything makes a lot of sense to me.

Right now, I'm not really looking for any commissions or gigs via libraries, I was just interested if this could be an additional source of income. But after reading what you and other composers could tell us about the library business, I seriously doubt this will be my path in life.

The most important problem I have with the whole concept of library music, is that you will never be part of the (post)production team of the film or media project for which your music is used. That's just not me. To me, a composer of film music is also a filmmaker, so I want to be involved in the storytelling process (which includes editing, sound, art-work, etcetera). I need the interaction with the production team to be able to contribute in a relevant way.

For me it's not just about the music, it's all about the story, and the experience of the audience or viewer, eventually. Without the interaction with the director, producer, editor, sound-designer, it wouldn't make any sense for me to write music. It would make me feel sad, lonely, and insignificant.

So far, I have rejected much more gigs and projects than I have accepted, even very lucrative ones. If I don't like the story, or if I don't feel my music would add any value to the project, I won't do it, since it would not be fair to the producer and the director, and it wouldn't be fair to other composers who want the job more than I do. I guess for a library composer, I don't have the right mindset.

Never mind that question about the contradiction, Daryl. I know what I need to know.

- Jerome Vonhögen


----------



## Daryl (Jan 7, 2016)

Jerome Vonhogen said:


> For me it's not just about the music, it's all about the story, and the experience of the audience or viewer, eventually. Without the interaction with the director, producer, editor, sound-designer, it wouldn't make any sense for me to write music. It would make me feel sad, lonely, and insignificant.


That's fair enough. I'm quite happy writing music not knowing the end usage. Just like when I write concert music. Music for the sake of music. However, I respect your view and in some ways I have a similar view, but from a different perspective.

D


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 8, 2016)

rgarber said:


> Sorry to butt in again.... So you guys are creating original tracks or arrangements of something and then you submit your work to a music library hoping somebody uses your piece in something, right? You're not being tasked with a "I want something lazy sounding" assignment - rather you make something up and hope it flies. - Rich



IT depends . For it works better for me when there is a show to write to and I am asked to do certain style with certain vibe. they provide a reference track so its the same as a temp track except no following a storyline of course.
its not only better but easier for me as I tend to not focus when I write. too many styles and instruments. too many options make me stare at a huge template wondering were I can go. again, its me and my weirdness.

also, every show wants something different. you can get a away with some generic styles but most of the time the producers want something specific under those styles. like tension music w/o orchestra or that sound like the latest trent reznor sound track or its hiphop but with trap elements... whatever. the show wants a specific style and they need plenty of it. so trying to write to a generic style that its submitted to tons of libraries and then hope it gets placed its a little tougher in my experience.

I write for a few libraries who have shows and contact me, but after reading on forums that its better to reach out to more libraries, I decided to try it out... I quickly found out those other libraries just want material, ANY material. no sense in quality or style just shove it into their system so they can present it to clients and say we have XXXXX amount of track use our service and hopefully try to get deals. its just a different strategy, smaller more focused libraries would have a couple of clients and then a new show comes along with new producers etc and that's it, they struggle and do something else, die, move on etc. Im trying to see if I write general styles and submit to the bigger ones and then keep doing the focus ones. the focus ones I get feedback from the library owners which they feed from the producers, editors etc.


----------



## StevenMcDonald (Jan 8, 2016)

^ What gsilbers said.

I only work for one library right now, and I've been doing it for just over a year. I always have a certain show I'm focused on writing for. I get a brief and some reference music, and just go to town writing several tracks per week in that style. Then of course, some of the tracks I write for one show get used in others as well. It would be really tough for me to write "generic" tracks without a reference.

It seems to work, as I've had lots of placements from this.

As far as profit, we'll see on BMI pay day in one week


----------



## jacobthestupendous (Jan 20, 2016)

Jellycrackers said:


> As far as profit, we'll see on BMI pay day in one week


Not to be indelicate, but to the point of the thread, I'm curious how BMI pay day was, generally speaking. Feel free to tell me it's none of my business, because I fully recognize that it really is none of my business.


----------

