# Is this a good deal? ( Library Music)



## JohnG (Aug 13, 2008)

Hmm...

I am assuming that the library seeks to license music for use in TV commercials and movie trailers or TV shows or even movies.

If you are counting on getting paid by BMI or ASCAP (performance royalties), you should be aware that they often miss music in commercials (at least MY music for commercials). They are fine at delivering royalties for episodic TV and reasonably ok about cable (though their accuracy in measuring performances is a highly debated topic that I'm not an expert in).

By contrast with music for TV shows or movies, if you are selling to a library that is trying to license music for commercials (including trailers), a share of the license fee paid by the advertiser to the music library would make more sense, since it's often the case that music is licensed (for trailers at least) for "any and all media" as long as it's associated with that particular film. So there's one payment up front, no performance royalties -- that's it. 

I'm skeptical about whether the expression "mechanical" royalties fully covers that because I always associate mechanicals with CDs or records or something -- not filmed entertainment or commercials. I barely understand the latter and definitely not the world of CDs well enough to offer advice.

Separately, but on a related topic, I hate the idea of surrendering my music to anyone's marketing machine if they don't offer any one of the following three things:

1. payment up front for stuff you are going to record yourself or do entirely in electronics; 

2. payment of expenses to record your piece and mix it with a real orchestra / ensemble; or

3. a reversion clause, so that you recover your music after a certain period of time if it never gets licensed.

Otherwise it costs them nothing to just take your music (and lots of other people's music) forever. The risk is that they lard up a huge database with stuff that gets in the way of your own brilliant creations so nobody ever discovers them.


----------



## _taylor (Aug 13, 2008)

Thanks for the reply..

I felt the same about the mechanicals, it really doesn't make much sense to me either. They claim to license strictly to tv, film and radio , I don't see how mechanicals play into that. I'll shoot them an email and see what kind of response I get. Also, I didn't read anything about licensing duration, that was one thing I was worried about..

The one good thing potentially is that they are based in the UK, so the exchange rate could be a nice bonus.

I'll post their response when I get it. Thanks again


----------



## _taylor (Aug 14, 2008)

This is what I got back after asking some more specific questions:

"each track is licensed for life of copyright. The split is a standard library music agreement 50/50 on all synchronisation, performance, mechanical etc. Yes, initial license fees are shared with composers for use of the mechanical copyright as we are not a royalty free library."


Life of copyright.. thats like 70 years after my death or something. hmm

Still unclear about the use of mechanicals, and he didn't really answer my specific question about it. Maybe has to do with the PRS/MCPS.


----------



## Daryl (Aug 14, 2008)

Which library company?

DG


----------



## wonshu (Aug 15, 2008)

spitt @ Thu Aug 14 said:


> I felt the same about the mechanicals, it really doesn't make much sense to me either. They claim to license strictly to tv, film and radio , I don't see how mechanicals play into that.



Sometimes these companies sell the CDs to the agencies for $ 99,- which does not include the license to use it... but rather the right to listen to it.. :shock: :shock: 

And perhaps the mechanicals are for those type of money flow...

Best
Hans


----------



## Dan Selby (Aug 15, 2008)

The bigger libraries that I have written for pay a smallish (low hundreds GBP), non-recoupable fee.

The big thing, I think, when deciding about a library company is whether or not your stuff is actually going to get heard by the people who might license it. So that comes down to marketing, distribution, market presence, industry reputation etc.

The one time I did write a few tracks for a smaller library a few years ago they've gone on to earn me practically nothing and it's definitely down to the library company - the tracks were no better or worse than stuff I've written for bigger libraries that have earned well.

If a library company pays nothing upfront then there is less incentive for them to do everything possible to make the catalogue bring in syncs (particularly if it's an online only library and they don't have the costs of pressing/distributing CDs to make back).


----------



## _taylor (Aug 15, 2008)

wonshu @ Fri Aug 15 said:


> Sometimes these companies sell the CDs to the agencies for $ 99,- which does not include the license to use it... but rather the right to listen to it.. :shock: :shock:
> 
> And perhaps the mechanicals are for those type of money flow...
> 
> ...



haha seriously? :shock: 



Dan Selby @ Fri Aug 15 said:


> The bigger libraries that I have written for pay a smallish (low hundreds GBP), non-recoupable fee.
> 
> The big thing, I think, when deciding about a library company is whether or not your stuff is actually going to get heard by the people who might license it. So that comes down to marketing, distribution, market presence, industry reputation etc.
> 
> ...




Thanks for your insights. It makes more sense to hold off right now. Something doesn't sit right.. I've been screwed in the past with record labels. Losing copyrights, publishing and my hard work with very little pay to never getting paid what I was promised. I don't want to go that route again.


----------



## midphase (Aug 15, 2008)

IMHO, it all comes down to who the Music company is and what their reach is.

The market is ridiculously saturated with tons of people hacking their wares....if these guys are just starting up...they don't have a chance!

If the company was someone like Killer Tracks, Video Helper or some of those guys who have strong established contacts with broadcasters, then the chances of your making money are much better.


----------



## Stevie (Aug 30, 2008)

Hi all,

I just got also a deal from a company, whose name I don't want to mention.
The conditions were the following:

- 50% of the license fees
- 50% of the performance royalties (ASCAP/BMI revenues)

This is the standard procedure, isn't it?


Hey wonshu, you here, too :D


Best,

Stevie


----------



## rJames (Aug 30, 2008)

Stevie @ Sat Aug 30 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I just got also a deal from a company, whose name I don't want to mention.
> The conditions were the following:
> ...



No, I don't think that is standard procedure. For a boutique trailer library, maybe yes, but not for one of the big five to ten (twenty, thirty??) companies.

If you have tons of negotiating clout, like you are a world renown act, or you have a large library (all packaged nicely on CDs and ready to market) you can get license fees.

As everyone here has said, the main concern about placing your music is the reach of the company.

Some companies sell CDs where they ask no licensing. It would be easy for them to give away 50% of nothing. Others do package deals, all in one price for use of the library (also no licensing fees to collect).

The devil is in the details.

50% of performance royalties is standard since you are selling (or giving away) your publishing rights (50% of performance collections) and you are the writer (the other 50% of performance collections)

This is my understanding.


----------



## rJames (Aug 30, 2008)

spitt @ Wed Aug 13 said:


> Thanks for the reply..
> 
> I felt the same about the mechanicals, it really doesn't make much sense to me either. They claim to license strictly to tv, film and radio , I don't see how mechanicals play into that.



There are two parts to a license fee. Sync rights (payment) gives the end user the right to use the intellectual property that is the song/cue. Mechanical rights (payment) gives the end user the right to use the recording. (I just had to have this explained to me.)

Sync fee is paid if you are using a song or cue and are rerecording it. If I owned the publishing and writers on a cue and someone else recorded it, the end user would have to get sync license from me and mechanical license from the recording artist (or owner of the mechanical rights).

This is my understanding...but I have been know to be wrong on occasion.

So, whether the end user is using it for TV, radio, internet, shopping mall, or restaurant, they have to pay sync and mechanical to have rights to use it.

Then your performance royalty group will possibly get a cue sheet that has your cue on it. After they collect the 20¢ that is owed you for it airing once in a radio commercial in Grand Junction, CO. They send you a check.

If the end user "forgets" to put it on the cue sheet, you get nothing.


----------



## John DeBorde (Aug 30, 2008)

spitt @ Thu Aug 14 said:


> This is what I got back after asking some more specific questions:
> 
> "each track is licensed for life of copyright. The split is a standard library music agreement 50/50 on all synchronisation, performance, mechanical etc. Yes, initial license fees are shared with composers for use of the mechanical copyright as we are not a royalty free library."
> 
> ...



If it's a British library I've heard them refer to "Broadcast Mechanicals" which are essentially sync fees. If the use warrants a sync fee or your tracks are included under a blanket license, you would get a cut of that (theoretically at least).

john


----------



## Stevie (Sep 1, 2008)

rJames @ Sat Aug 30 said:


> No, I don't think that is standard procedure. For a boutique trailer library, maybe yes, but not for one of the big five to ten (twenty, thirty??) companies.



Would the standard then be less or more percent?


----------



## rJames (Sep 1, 2008)

Hi Stevie, sorry I didn't spell this out.

Generally libraries will give 0% of the license. they usually want to pay you upfront for ownership of publishing.

Anything is negotiable. Anything. But you have to have something that they think they can sell and you are the only supplier. Supply vs demand. (if there are 2000 composers vying for 100 composer positions...you get the idea)

There was an interesting roundtable discussion a year or two ago at filmmusic.net.

A group of music library owners gathered to talk about the library music business.

The general gist was that they only use music that they can own. (there are exceptions as I have previously explained...i.e. if you have clout)

Because trailers don't pay ANY performance royalty, the boutique library businesses that cater to the trailer industry generally do a different deal. They pay $0 up front but share the licensing. 

The answer to you question is that the normal share of licensing income is $0 to the artist and writer...but you get an upfront payment.


----------



## Stevie (Sep 1, 2008)

Thanks for going into deeper detail!
I thought 50/50 is low 

Best,

Stevie


----------



## Dan Selby (Sep 2, 2008)

Just to say that my experience is the opposite of what Ron is saying - I don't know if this is a difference between UK and US business models? The big libraries that I've written for pay a small fee (few hundred GBP) per track and then a 50% split on all income (sync fees/mechanicals as well as performance royalties) is standard.


----------



## Stevie (Sep 2, 2008)

Dan Selby @ Tue Sep 02 said:


> Just to say that my experience is the opposite of what Ron is saying - I don't know if this is a difference between UK and US business models? The big libraries that I've written for pay a small fee (few hundred GBP) per track and then a 50% split on all income (sync fees/mechanicals as well as performance royalties) is standard.



!!!!!
In Germany you don't get anything for composing the track.
You get only half of the license fees and the royalities.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Oct 8, 2017)

JohnG said:


> Separately, but on a related topic, I hate the idea of surrendering my music to anyone's marketing machine if they don't offer any one of the following three things:
> 
> 1. payment up front for stuff you are going to record yourself or do entirely in electronics;
> 
> ...



Old post, I know.

But this speaks to me in a way like never before. I have turned down a few exclusive, perpetual deals recently. This is because this month I got some mechanical royalty statements for music I had signed years ago.

I was insulted at how low the amounts were. This is music that is signed to a company for the life of the copyright. I am getting dogs**t in mechanical royalties.

I don't care if the music sucks. They accepted it and they should be working to get this shit used. The uses they are getting can barely pay for McDonalds. I am so disappointed in these deceptions.

Don't even get me started on the backend royalties. My ASCAP check was enough to pay rent and a light bill for one month. That is sad considering that I was making at least dounble this amount 3 to 4 years ago. More music out there but less money. Isn't that a bad thing? Who in the hell is the money going to?


----------



## mac (Oct 8, 2017)

Composers who’s music doesn’t suck? (Your words, not mine)


----------



## Daryl (Oct 9, 2017)

Desire Inspires said:


> Who in the hell is the money going to?


One of the other 100s of 1000s of composers who have released library music. A Publisher will sell whichever track gets the gig. if it's not yours, tough. If your track sucks (your words, not mine), the Publisher shouldn't have taken it in the first place. If they did, then you should have chosen a Publisher with higher standards. Or written better, or more useful music.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Oct 9, 2017)

LMFAO! The old "quality over quantity" rhetoric.

So in realty, I need more music out there with better companies. Bet!


----------



## Daryl (Oct 9, 2017)

Desire Inspires said:


> LMFAO! The old "quality over quantity" rhetoric.


Which do you disagree with? Are you saying that the quality of what you produce has no bearing on the eventual income?


Desire Inspires said:


> So in realty, I need more music out there with better companies. Bet!


Having never heard your music, I can't venture an opinion on what you should do.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Oct 9, 2017)

Daryl said:


> Which do you disagree with? Are you saying that the quality of what you produce has no bearing on the eventual income?



It has minimal bearing.

I agree with what @rgames states in this post: https://vi-control.net/community/th...ssible-to-make-any-profit.50657/#post-3924152

I know people are going to give me Hell for saying that quality has minimal bearing. I believe quality does have some bearing, but not much.

I am going to focus more on quantity, networking, and, luck. I honestly believe that those three things are what has gotten me to where I am now. I am not even close to quitting my day job. But if I hadn't just continued to make music on a regular basis and submit it, I wouldn't even be earning any PRO royalties. 

I have seen people much more talented than me give up because they could not go full time with music within 2 or 3 years. I don't want to quit. I just want to find a way to make the magic happen. I need more music out there in comapnies that are going to actively push and market what I send out.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Oct 9, 2017)

Well, I suppose people have different opinions based on their experiences. 

My experience has been that in the grand scheme of things, at the end of the day, good work is paramount. For several reasons, one being motivation and passion to continue with this long journey. What actually constitute good work, is up for debate of course?

Persistence is a different matter and surely, one needs that a lot to even survive in the music industry. 

But in the last decade that I have been a full time composer/music producer, it is always quality that has got me the jobs, less so networking. 

And, I will admit that without much networking, my prospects may have suffered but this has worked well for me so far. People come to me for my expertise (mostly!) in whatever they think I do well. 

I think as long as that is the case, people may want to work with me. But, if I was doing something very regular or not bothered about quality as much, long term I would loose out.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 9, 2017)

Desire Inspires said:


> It has minimal bearing.
> 
> I agree with what @rgames states in this post: https://vi-control.net/community/th...ssible-to-make-any-profit.50657/#post-3924152
> 
> ...


Well you're entitled to your opinion, but given the fact that I'm successful, don't you think that my opinion is worth something more than an "I reckon"?


----------



## Desire Inspires (Oct 9, 2017)

Daryl said:


> Well you're entitled to your opinion, but given the fact that I'm successful, don't you think that my opinion is worth something more than an "I reckon"?



Hell yeah it is!

I don't doubt that you are successful. But I don't know _why_ you are successful. There could be a number of factors in play. Quality of your music is probably one of those factors. But is it the overwhelming factor? I cannot say.

Would you be willing to share where you started and how your progression has went so far with music licensing? Maybe you guys are modest, but the successful people rarely share the details of how things went from zero to sixty!


----------



## Aaron Sapp (Oct 9, 2017)

"I don't care if the music sucks." Totally lost me right there.  Can peddle shit until you're blue in the face, but editors know better. They'll audition that track for two seconds and move on.

I actually took a tally of how many unique tracks I've done (not including background versions, alternates, etc.) and it was lower than I thought it'd be. Something like 200 (over the course of 10+ years on/off). And yet, I know I sweated my ass off over every single track - no less than 4 days of work per cut. I'm now able to live comfortably off my residuals alone.

It's not a testament to some kind of genius, but I'm acutely aware that the competition is pure brutality in the production music world. Lots of world-class composers/producers out there writing killer music. If you're not firing on all cylinders all the time, you will ultimately waste your time if your goal is to develop some kind of revenue stream.

So there's really no deception here. If you're in bed with a great publisher and you work your ass off, you can do well. There's always room for great tunes.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Oct 9, 2017)

Aaron Sapp said:


> "I don't care if the music sucks." Totally lost me right there.  Can peddle shit until you're blue in the face, but editors know better. They'll audition that track for two seconds and move on.
> 
> I actually took a tally of how many unique tracks I've done (not including background versions, alternates, etc.) and it was lower than I thought it'd be. Something like 200 (over the course of 10+ years on/off). And yet, I know I sweated my ass off over every single track - no less than 4 days of work per cut. I'm now able to live comfortably off my residuals alone.
> 
> ...



Let us hear your music.
---

EDIT: 

Never mind. I went to your site: http://www.aaronsapp.com/music.html

The music sounds a bit dated. It was done well, but it isn't really modern or progressive by today's standards. I think it may be time to switch up your style and get in tune with what sells. No insult, just a modest opinion.

Thank you for sharing, but I would like info from someone with more modern and progressive music.


----------



## asherpope (Oct 10, 2017)

Desire Inspires said:


> Let us hear your music.
> ---
> 
> EDIT:
> ...


He just said he lives comfortably off his residuals, whereas you said youre not close to quitting your day job!


----------



## Daryl (Oct 10, 2017)

Desire Inspires said:


> I think it may be time to switch up your style and get in tune with what sells. No insult, just a modest opinion.


I will answer your post to me later when I have more time, but didn't Aaron say that his music does sell? So why would he change what he is doing?



Desire Inspires said:


> Thank you for sharing, but I would like info from someone with more modern and progressive music.


But what happens if "modern and progressive music" doesn't sell? No point in producing a product that nobody wants to buy, if you're doing this for a living.


----------



## Erick - BVA (Oct 10, 2017)

Aaron Sapp said:


> "I don't care if the music sucks." Totally lost me right there.  Can peddle shit until you're blue in the face, but editors know better. They'll audition that track for two seconds and move on.
> 
> I actually took a tally of how many unique tracks I've done (not including background versions, alternates, etc.) and it was lower than I thought it'd be. Something like 200 (over the course of 10+ years on/off). And yet, I know I sweated my ass off over every single track - no less than 4 days of work per cut. I'm now able to live comfortably off my residuals alone.
> 
> ...



Music is so subjective. I have released tracks which I thought would do well, and they flopped (still selling a few here and there). And then some random track sells lots and lots of copies. And the kicker? The master and the "sound" were actually kind of crappy. It was the mood and the uniqueness which stood out, I believe. What else explains it? So you could spend hours or days on a track which you think will do great, and then some weird track you spent a few minutes just "making up" on the spot sells very well. Here's the real world example:

_*First track (3 sales on Pond5 at the moment, maybe 10 sales on AudioJungle):*_



_*Second Track (80 sales on Pond5, no sales on AudioJungle because it was rejected due to its quality, which I completely accept). *_



It's a strange game I think. There are no certainties. Just keep writing and producing, and you may find that you discover or create something unique and attractive to a wide range of buyers.

_EDIT: I tried remaking the "Sad Ambient Piano Dirge" in a better quality, thinking that maybe it would do even better. How many sales? (it's been about a year). Just a few so far._


----------



## Desire Inspires (Oct 10, 2017)

asherpope said:


> He just said he lives comfortably off his residuals, whereas you said youre not close to quitting your day job!



What is your point?


----------



## Desire Inspires (Oct 10, 2017)

Daryl said:


> But what happens if "modern and progressive music" doesn't sell? No point in producing a product that nobody wants to buy, if you're doing this for a living.



Agreed. Thanks for your response. 

I look forward to hearing more about your journey.


----------



## asherpope (Oct 10, 2017)

Desire Inspires said:


> What is your point?


I would have thought it was obvious. You dismissed his opinion because his sound isn't 'progressive' enough for you. It's progressive enough for the those that matter - the clients! So much so that he can live off his music. You came off as a bit of a twat with your whole "actually nevermind, I'd rather hear from more modern sounding composers" comment, especially as on pretty much every thread you get involved in you basically go on about how the free market will decide what's "good"...so which is it? Any music that sells is "good" or does it have to be "progressive" to be considered worthy?


----------



## Daryl (Oct 10, 2017)

Desire Inspires said:


> I don't doubt that you are successful. But I don't know _why_ you are successful. There could be a number of factors in play. Quality of your music is probably one of those factors. But is it the overwhelming factor? I cannot say


Having finished writing for today, I can ruminate a little regarding your points.

My own career path is irrelevant to you, as we have different skills, so what worked for me won't work for you. However, I have a series of suggestions/questions that could help your quest.

Quality vs quantity

Both have their merits but are very different markets.

With the quantity market, the music is often loop based, and disposable. It is expected to make money for 3-4 years, at most, and then something "new" will be required. These sorts of tracks will continually have to be replaced, so it is pretty clear that quantity is important. It is also important to realise that with many smaple and other products on the market, the competition is huge, so a quick turnover is the best way to ensure a steady stream of income. An example of the sort of music that has a short shelf life would be Dubsetp, which was really popular 3-4 years ago, yet has almost disappeared without trace these days.

With the quality market one is aiming for a different usage. Not so much as disposable, but musically more interesting and less affected by trends and fashion. These sort of tracks should have a 10-15 year lifespan, so it is worth taking time and making them sound as good as possible. Whilst the initial earning my not be as great as something more "current", the income over the life of the track is likely to be a lot greater.

Publishers

The choice of Publisher is crucial when it comes to selling your music. If they don't have the right clients for your music, it doesn't matter who they are; you still won't make money. A good search engine is a necessity, and the metadata has to be very efficient and correct. If not, then your tracks will never be found. One mistake people make is thinking that a Publisher should be working harder at selling their music. I know that's what the contract says, but the reality is that a Publisher will work hard to sell whatever music gets the gig. For them, as long as the client purchases a licence, they don't care where the music comes from. You job is to continually be reminding them who you are, being helpful, looking for clients to pass on to them etc. and then there is a greater chance that they will add you to playlists and bear you in mind when doing their own music searches.

My own library income

I know that it's popular to say that quality is not important, but my own experience has taught me otherwise. With one of my contracts, 5 albums are making £50-60K a year between them. So that's 75 tracks in total. Given that many library composers write well over 100 tracks a year, why are mine making more than theirs? I have the same Publisher as 100s of other composers. My music doesn't get "pushed" at all over other people, so there has to be a reason. There are various clients who use pretty much everything I write, so having heard my music, they look for more. If quality doesn't matter, why would they care?

I think it's partly how I write, but also what I write. I'm not interested in current trends (although I did get involved in a Dubstep album once...!), but would seek to write music that has a modicum of integrity, a modicum of musical interest and with very high production standards. I also never forget the end usage, whether that''s by making sure the music supports voiceover, or by making sure that there are lots of useful versions, or that stems are available, or....lots of ways, but never forget the client. You have to persuade them that your music is the music that they should choose, and the only way you can do that is making yours work better for their purposes.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Oct 10, 2017)

Daryl said:


> Having finished writing for today, I can ruminate a little regarding your points.
> 
> My own career path is irrelevant to you, as we have different skills, so what worked for me won't work for you. However, I have a series of suggestions/questions that could help your quest.
> 
> ...



Wow, that's amazing!

Thank you so much for sharing this info. It gives me something to reflect on.


----------



## rJames (Oct 10, 2017)

One thing to remember Desire, is that timeless music will have a longer lifetime than stylish music. This may be Aaron's secret. As I recall he writes big orchestral stuff, forgive me if I'm wrong. Orchestra music has that timeless thing because an orchestra is an ensemble that is still current. I think in Daryl's case he writes for live orchestra, so again there will be a timeless quality and longer life. Regarding income, there are many streams. Sync is usually biggest; air play royalty etc. a lot of music playing on cable TV can bring in little $$ while one big sync can be a nice payday. 
The business of music is targeting specific clients (client types) and giving them what they need. 
I think the process goes like; what kinds of things can I do and/or where can I compete? What do I want to do? What will pay? Choose the balance you can live with. 
Be realistic. Do it.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 11, 2017)

rJames said:


> I think in Daryl's case he writes for live orchestra, so again there will be a timeless quality and longer life.


It is certainly true to say that using live players, even if only a few, will give the recording of your music a longer shelf life. One of my biggest earning tracks uses 9 players, and has absolutely nothing new about it. However, it has earned its costs back and time spent writing it many, many times over.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Oct 11, 2017)

@rJames and @Daryl 

Thank you for sharing that info. I have found your posts simultaneously inspiring and disheartening.

I am inspired because I understand how the timeless nature of the music you work on. But I am also disheartened because I do not create music in those styles.

Is it safe to say that if someone doesn't write music with a timeless feel to it or if someone doesn't use real players for the music that he/she are destined to earn less money? If so, is writing in quantity the only way to make up for not having music that same level of music? Is it a waste of time to even pursue a library music career if one cannot produce timeless music using an orchestra?


----------



## Daryl (Oct 11, 2017)

Desire Inspires said:


> Is it safe to say that if someone doesn't write music with a timeless feel to it or if someone doesn't use real players for the music that he/she are destined to earn less money?


Not at all. It's just one way, and there are (and historically have been) plenty of people who do use real players who don't make a good living.You just have to find a niche at which you excel, and then be the best you can be.



Desire Inspires said:


> If so, is writing in quantity the only way to make up for not having music that same level of music? Is it a waste of time to even pursue a library music career if one cannot produce timeless music using an orchestra?


Again, it all depends on what you're writing. If you look at the rate card from MCPS, for example, or look at the PRS per minute Royalties chart, you can see where the money can be made. Then watch the channels that pay the most, listen to the library music, and see where you fit in. Do the same with the smaller cable channels, particularly with reality TV. Once you know what people are using, you know where you can fit in.

Be aware though, that this game isn't for everyone, and there isn't room for everyone to make good money. This is why, even if you are writing disposable music, you have to do the best tracks you can, with the best possible production values, because something has to make clients (the ones who can tell the difference) pick your tracks over someone else's.


----------



## stixman (Oct 11, 2017)

90% of music I hear is not very good so there is money in average quality music.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 11, 2017)

stixman said:


> 90% of music I hear is not very good so there is money in average quality music.


Yes, but the three things you need to know are:

1. How much the licence fee is for that usage
2. How much the Royalties are for that TV channel
3. How many other composers are also pitching the same sort of rubbish.


----------



## stixman (Oct 11, 2017)

You have 3 good points 


Daryl said:


> Yes, but the three things you need to know are:
> 
> 1. How much the licence fee is for that usage
> 2. How much the Royalties are for that TV channel
> 3. How many other composers are also pitching the same sort of rubbish.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 11, 2017)

stixman said:


> You have 3 good points


I've been doing this a long time...!


----------



## Kyle Preston (Oct 11, 2017)

Thanks for your thoughtful posts @Daryl : ) I got in the library game at the beginning of this year and have only focused on quality so it's comforting to hear your experiences. Do you have a site where one could hear more of your work?


----------



## rJames (Oct 11, 2017)

I was only describing what I thought were the reasons behind the success of Daryl and Aaron. 
I probably should have mentioned, beyond it being orchestral, talent, perseverance, thought. Etc etc. 
there's probably more money in non orchestral. 
But you can't just say, "I'm just gonna do what I do". But that HAS to be part of the decision. 
Another important issue was brought up by stixman. 
You can't listen to what's on air and say, "OK I'll do that". It might be crap and in the program cause the composer is the producers brother. I mean. You don't know how the music got there. 
You always have to shoot to be way better than what you are hearing. You have to make an impression. You have to be discovered and not thrown in the circular file. 
You have to present something new or different that solves a problem (fills a slot perfectly). 
I've noticed recently while listening that the pieces chosen for trailers has something striking about it. Not difficult not amazing but striking. 
Most music is some kind of underscore. That's not really a description of trailer music because it needs to drive the narrative. (But it's still a sort of underscore)
I've always said that the most important thing is your composition is the IDEA. 
So understanding your target; then being creative with a striking idea. My 2 cents.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 12, 2017)

Kyle Preston said:


> Thanks for your thoughtful posts @Daryl : ) I got in the library game at the beginning of this year and have only focused on quality so it's comforting to hear your experiences. Do you have a site where one could hear more of your work?



Sure. Here's a recent video for a start.


----------



## mac (Oct 12, 2017)

@Daryl


----------



## Gerd Kaeding (Oct 12, 2017)

Daryl said:


> Sure. Here's a recent video for a start.



Great stuff , Daryl !!

Gerd


----------

