# Help me understand the quantity equation.



## Dear Villain (May 16, 2017)

I've read time and again that to be successful with libraries, one must be able to write essentially a "piece a day", with a library of hundreds or even thousands of cues in order to derive enough payments/royalties to earn a living. At the same time, I keep hearing that it's essentially quantity over quality. Now, obviously, others suggest that it's both quality and quantity, but I think I'm missing a big part of the puzzle. I will use my own experience with Pond5 to illustrate my dilemma and hope that some of you will be able to offer some insight.

About 6 months ago, I began uploading instrumental cues to Pond5 (ranging from epic orchestral, to minimalist piano/strings, jazz, quirky, melodic, and everything in between). I also did this with several other libraries, but as Pond5 is one of the bigger ones, let's just focus on this. All the tracks were accepted and I spent days adding meta data. The tracks all just sit there...no views, no sales, nothing. I make it a daily regimen to post some tracks via social media and forums, but I don't think I ever attract any listens from people that would actually need to buy the music.

So, my first question is: whether I have 40 tracks (which is currently what I have put up) or 400 tracks, what difference will it make to sales? Using AudioSparx as an example, I was made a featured new artist for 2 months, and got virtually zero plays/zero sales the entire time my name was at the top of the list. Does something change when you have more tracks, in terms of boosting your visibility on the site? Could an individual who released one track on Pond5 that sold 100 times get more visibility than someone with 400 tracks that sold nothing? Is breaking through the listings the dirty secret of libraries...like you have to know the meta keywords that magically raise your profile, similar to how some great youtube channels never get attention while others quickly build a massive following?)

I'm just curious, because going forward, I really need to evaluate the balance between "quickly thrown together" and "masterpieces" (yes, I'm being dramatic).

Thanks for your insight!
Dave


----------



## Desire Inspires (May 17, 2017)

I don't think it is a quality vs quantity thing in your case.

The problem for you is that you are *adding music to the wrong music libraries!*

Focus on working with companies that actively license their catalogs so you can receive sync fees and backend royalties.


----------



## muk (May 17, 2017)

What Desire Inspires wrote, exactly. With non-exclusive libraries it seems to be a numbers game. The more tracks you have sitting there the higher the chance that one gets licensed. But there are other libraries that actively market their catalogs, and really try to place your tracks. They are much more picky in what they accept - accepting anything that they won't be able to place makes little sense.

You still need many tracks with them, but certainly not as many as with non-exclusive libraries. A member here who is successful in the library business posted that he writes one (orchestral) track per week on average. That sounds much more reasonable and sustainable to me than having to write and produce one track every day.


----------



## Dear Villain (May 18, 2017)

Thanks, Desire Inspires and muk. 

Desire Inspires: Are you meaning that in general adding music to Pond5/Audiosparx, etc. is a bad idea, or specifically with regard to the music I'm creating? (assuming you maybe checked out my soundcloud/website and listened to some stuff?)

muk: I agree that one orchestral track per week is far more realistic and sustainable, but what I still don't get is simply the idea that just because you have a thousand tracks on Pond5, for example, unless your artist profile finds its way to the top of the listings (likely based on actually getting sales to justify moving it to the top) wouldn't a thousand tracks just sit there like twenty tracks? I understand having more tracks gives you a statistically greater chance, but I think the original problem is still, how do people get on the featured pages? I read that some people buy their own tracks to pad their sales totals, which apparently is frowned upon/forbidden. If we've gotten to that point that we now not only have to "pay to play" in terms of sites like Music X-Ray, but pay for our own music, in hopes that others will too, that's not good.


----------



## doctornine (May 18, 2017)

With the best will in the world, I'd say you're confusing stock music sites with libraries - there's a difference.


----------



## AdventureSounds (May 18, 2017)

Hey, I listened to you music and you have some nice songs!
I would say that you should focus on genres that are most popular. Have a listen to song that sell well and try to write in that style.


----------



## doctornine (May 18, 2017)

Back to the OP - Dave - having a listen to your music. You know what ? I couldn't write orchestral as well as that in a million years. Thing is though none of it really sounds like library though, most of the tracks are too long, quick look on you're audiosparx and it doesn't seem like you have any edits or alt mixes either, things that you really need to have for library.

No doubt someone will know better, but I don't know anyone that makes a living from stock sites, it's possible to make some money sure, but not a living.

You want to know how to be successful at library ? It's blindingly simple : write music that works on tv. Which, truth be told, isn't always the music you'd choose to write. And do it for publishers that will make the effort to sell it - thats their job.


----------



## Dear Villain (May 18, 2017)

Wow, thanks again. A lot of good advice and food for thought. 

AdventureSounds: about focusing on genres that are most popular-that reminds me of advice my father in law gave my wife and I back when we started our "classical" accordion and clarinet chamber duo. We were finishing our first CD, and designing a website. He tells us that for us to be successful, we should model our site and our "sound" after a site he found---belonging to Alicia Keys  lol We were like, "sure, dad, we'll just throw out our 20 years of classical music training on accordion and clarinet and become pop/rock stars." Honestly, I've always had a difficult time doing anything that didn't either come naturally or simply feel right. This is most true with music, unfortunately.

DoctorNine: Again, I appreciate the brutal honesty. I already knew my music simply wasn't "wallpaper sound" like so much stuff on those stock music sites, but I hoped that I could be true to the forms I enjoy writing and still find an audience. I will definitely pursue some other libraries, but I totally get what you're saying about TV-friendly music. The problem is, I don't sing (or have access to singers), play guitar, drums, and I don't know how to get that type of sound...I'm a classically-trained musician, and honestly, doing these orchestral pieces is actually my attempt at writing more popular sounding stuff (compared to the chamber/orchestral music I write for concerts) lol!

Thanks guys,
Dave


----------



## mc_deli (May 18, 2017)

Dear Villain said:


> I've read time and again that to be successful with libraries, one must be able to write essentially a "piece a day", with a library of hundreds or even thousands of cues in order to derive enough payments/royalties to earn a living. At the same time, I keep hearing that it's essentially quantity over quality. Now, obviously, others suggest that it's both quality and quantity, but I think I'm missing a big part of the puzzle. I will use my own experience with Pond5 to illustrate my dilemma and hope that some of you will be able to offer some insight.
> 
> About 6 months ago, I began uploading instrumental cues to Pond5 (ranging from epic orchestral, to minimalist piano/strings, jazz, quirky, melodic, and everything in between). I also did this with several other libraries, but as Pond5 is one of the bigger ones, let's just focus on this. All the tracks were accepted and I spent days adding meta data. The tracks all just sit there...no views, no sales, nothing. I make it a daily regimen to post some tracks via social media and forums, but I don't think I ever attract any listens from people that would actually need to buy the music.
> 
> ...


What's the question you are asking here?
The literal answer is that you could upload thousands of tracks of your music and never sell any - because it's the wrong music for licensing on the wrong sites (that are passive and flooded with content).

You are obviously very talented. No problem there. But do you really want to spend your time writing library music and trying to get an income or making a living from it?

Square peg. Round hole.

If you want to actually make money from libraries, then make much simpler, much happier, far less earnest music - and make really great simple tracks - and target the highest profile library you can - one that is proactive and not flooded with "anything goes" tracks.


----------



## Jaap (May 18, 2017)

Check out the May and the today released June edition from Sound on Sound magazine. Dan Graham from the Gothic Storm libraries is writing a great series on this subject.


----------



## mc_deli (May 19, 2017)

Jaap said:


> Check out the May and the today released June edition from Sound on Sound magazine. Dan Graham from the Gothic Storm libraries is writing a great series on this subject.


http://www.soundonsound.com/music-business/all-about-library-music-part-1
Nice one


----------



## Jaap (May 19, 2017)

mc_deli said:


> http://www.soundonsound.com/music-business/all-about-library-music-part-1
> Nice one



And here part 2 which is a really nice indepth article. Covering all aspects from non-exclusive, royalty free and exclusive and the pros and cons etc. (you need a subscription though or pay for it to read it completely)
http://www.soundonsound.com/music-business/library-work


----------



## dannymc (May 19, 2017)

thanks Jaap i got part 1 already great to see part two is released well worth the low cost subscription. is this the first time production music has been looked at in depth by a big publication such Sound on sound magazine?

does this mean there will be a whole new generation of entrants to the market now. nice, more competition 

Danny


----------



## Dear Villain (May 19, 2017)

Just purchased both parts and will be reading shortly. Thanks again for your insight, guys. I'm really struggling to understand how best to use my skills. The thought of writing "much simpler, much happier, far less earnest music" seems easier said than done. One can keep hearing things like, "be unique...offer something different to stand out from the crowd", so the idea of now trying to imitate and copy the sound/style/form of thousands of people in hopes of snagging my share of the pie, seems illogical. That said, I'm going to continue my research, and heed the advice of those of you that know better and hopefully figure it all out.

Dave


----------



## Jaap (May 19, 2017)

dannymc said:


> thanks Jaap i got part 1 already great to see part two is released well worth the low cost subscription. is this the first time production music has been looked at in depth by a big publication such Sound on sound magazine?
> 
> does this mean there will be a whole new generation of entrants to the market now. nice, more competition
> 
> Danny



I had this old article bookmarked. Not sure if it was covered later as well in-depth. 
http://www.soundonsound.com/people/introduction-production-music


----------



## mc_deli (May 19, 2017)

Dear Villain said:


> trying to imitate and copy the sound/style/form of thousands of people



I think it's more about creating what the buyers want. There are thousands of people trying but - in my trawls around libraries - there's still plenty of room if you can nail it.
Problem is, it's not "music" is we know it, is it? It's painting by numbers got a certain degree. It's something that's always part of the art of popular music but it's taken to an extreme in the library "genre" or "medium".
It's also a great excuse isn't it? When you don't make great library you can always blame your true artist self - I know I do!


----------



## Desire Inspires (May 19, 2017)

You don't have to choose between one or the other. 

I have my own sound that I bring to the table. I also emulate other people's styles as well. Both can be done. It isn't something you have to split hairs about. There is room for both and a lot of other stuff in between.


----------

