# Library Music - Starting Out Help?



## procreative (Oct 27, 2017)

Considering dipping my toes in.

1. Should I register with a PRO, and being based in UK what is best one for this type of thing and is it necessary?

2. How do you make sure you are registered or prove the music you upload is yours?

3. Should files be watermarked and what is best way?

4. Any recommendations for any specific libraries eg Pond5 etc?

5. What is best way to ensure your tracks have even a small chance of getting found?


----------



## Jaap (Oct 27, 2017)

1: Yes and PRS is a good one to be with
2: Not sure what you mean here, but I have never been asked to prove that my music is mine
3: Most of the companies will watermark the tracks themselves and I don't watermark them before sending out a demo to companies
4: That is a very broad subject and depends on what you are after, what your style is etc. I would recommend checking out https://musiclibraryreport.com/ and/or read the ebook that can be found here http://thebusinessofmusiclicensing.com/
5: If you go royalty free and join the big herd on sites like Pond5, good use of keywords, description, clever titles and of course good music (though not always the key to success). If you go exclusive to a good solid library the publisher will (hopefully) do the work for you.

And be sure to read all the articles by Dan Graham (and purchase them if they are not online yet fully, worth every cent): https://www.soundonsound.com/music-business/all-about-library-music-part-1 (total of 7 articles so far)


----------



## ColonelMarquand (Oct 27, 2017)

Below applies to Exclusive libraries and not Royalty Free like Pond 5.

1. I would get into a library first. You may find they do the PRO thing for you. PRS for the UK.

2. When with a library, you won't need to do that.

3. Not really relevant. 

4. Don't know anything about RF libraries.

5. With Exclusive libraries, it's really about their distributors and how good they are. With RF I would say its probably more to do with their search engine.


----------



## procreative (Oct 27, 2017)

Great answers from both of you, thanks. If you were starting out from scratch, where would you start, assuming you dont have a stack of tracks already?


----------



## ColonelMarquand (Oct 27, 2017)

I dont really like RF music. There's nothing wrong particularly with the music. Some of the music is very good and there is crossover with that style of music from RF to Exclusive more and more frequently. It depends what you want to write.

The view I take on a piece of music is that it represents an income source. I dont take onboard whether its artistic or any of that shit. Its just income like if you were a plumber and you get called out to a house to fix a tap. Music is the same as that. Its a job of work. Plumbers generally make more.

I like the idea that you can have a piece of music (or a job if you like ) that can be used for quite a while around the the tv stations of the world and when you add up all those jobs you can earn if you're lucky, nearly as much as a plumber. May depend on what type of music you want to write and how old you are. In other words, how much time do you have. If you want to take your chances in the RF world you need a lot of sales. There's no back end or sync fees generally. If you go RF and you make a ton of sales on one track then you can make some good money.

If on the other hand you want to write in a vein aimed more towards Tv styles and you take a long view, you could build up a number of tracks over the years and if you get lucky make a steady stream.

Lets say you write 500 fairly well aimed tracks at Tv over 10 or 15 years and you get average out at say, $25 a track every year (inc. sync fees) = $12500 p/a

But average out at $50 p/a = $25000 p/a and and so on, up or down the scale.

Some writers can make $50K plus p/a with a lot less tracks than that.


----------



## procreative (Oct 27, 2017)

So are you saying that even starting from nothing, dont get into RF? What libraries are there out there that dont set minimum track counts to be even considered? And are you working with just one if its exclusive?


----------



## Jaap (Oct 27, 2017)

procreative said:


> Great answers from both of you, thanks. If you were starting out from scratch, where would you start, assuming you dont have a stack of tracks already?



Depends again on the road you want, but if I could do it over again, I would go straight ahead for the exclusive libraries. Write an album with 12 tracks you like and think that suites your style the best and pitch that to libraries that might be good to have it.


----------



## procreative (Oct 27, 2017)

Thanks.

1. How long should each track be?
2. Can you list the libraries to consider? Especially for someone without a track record or profile?


----------



## gtrwll (Oct 27, 2017)

As you can see this is a broad topic and opinions vary greatly based on experiences. I started out with Pond5 couple of years ago and it's working great for me. They're non-exclusive RF so you can remove your tracks if it's not working for you.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Oct 27, 2017)

Start with West One Music in the UK. Send in some demos!


----------



## Jaap (Oct 27, 2017)

procreative said:


> Thanks.
> 
> 1. How long should each track be?
> 2. Can you list the libraries to consider? Especially for someone without a track record or profile?



I would really advice to read the articles I posted from Dan Graham in Sound on Sound. They answer lot of these kind of questions and also probably a few dozen you even haven't thought off 

Oh and if you are on Facebook: join this group. Mostly aiming for film music with some very high profile members, but library music is also covered a lot https://www.facebook.com/groups/556877397821248/?ref=group_header


----------



## procreative (Oct 27, 2017)

Desire Inspires said:


> Start with West One Music in the UK. Send in some demos!



Surely they want complete albums and there is nothing on that site about how to submit material or their terms?


----------



## Desire Inspires (Oct 27, 2017)

procreative said:


> Surely they want complete albums and there is nothing on that site about how to submit material or their terms?



I know. You have to call them on the phone and talk to someone at the company. 

That is how I get my information from music libraries. I call them up and ask questions. I prefer to talk to someone first and then follow up via email. 

So are you going to call them or what?!?


----------



## procreative (Oct 27, 2017)

Desire Inspires said:


> I know. You have to call them on the phone and talk to someone at the company.
> 
> That is how I get my information from music libraries. I call them up and ask questions. I prefer to talk to someone first and then follow up via email.
> 
> So are you going to call them or what?!?



Ha ha! Maybe.. feeling a bit intimidated by them, looks like they are big players.

Whats the best approach, write a load of stuff to suit yourself then try to place it or find out what they want?


----------



## Daryl (Oct 27, 2017)

procreative said:


> Surely they want complete albums and there is nothing on that site about how to submit material or their terms?


They won't be accepting the music that you send them into their catalogue. If they decide to work with you, you'll get a brief, and then it would be on the understanding that they could reject your track. If you want to do a complete album, you'll have to prove yourself first.


----------



## procreative (Oct 27, 2017)

Daryl said:


> They won't be accepting the music that you send them into their catalogue. If they decide to work with you, you'll get a brief, and then it would be on the understanding that they could reject your track. If you want to do a complete album, you'll have to prove yourself first.



I understand that! Whats the length of samples to send to this type of library to get the ball rolling as surely they dont have time to listen to loads of 3 minute tracks?


----------



## Desire Inspires (Oct 27, 2017)

procreative said:


> Ha ha! Maybe.. feeling a bit intimidated by them, looks like they are big players.
> 
> Whats the best approach, write a load of stuff to suit yourself then try to place it or find out what they want?



I hate it when composers ask for advice and then totally ignore it. It feels like people are just being trolls, asking a bunch of questions, ignoring the advice given, and then getting angry.

If you are too scared to call them, then you should just quit now. Music library work isn’t that difficult to do. Just contact the libraries and do the hard work.

“You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.” is what I see from most new people asking for advice. Someone can’t make a simple phone call but can ask and answer a bunch of questions on a forum? 

Troll city! You got us good! Probably an experienced guy here having fun.


----------



## procreative (Oct 27, 2017)

Desire Inspires said:


> I hate it when composers ask for advice and then totally ignore it. It feels like people are just being trolls, asking a bunch of questions, ignoring the advice given, and then getting angry.
> 
> If you are too scared to call them, then you should just quit now. Music library work isn’t that difficult to do. Just contact the libraries and do the hard work.
> 
> ...



Listen I appreciate the advice, but I hardly think telling me to dive straight in and call a multinational library is the answer alone.

And I doubt they would appreciate a call from me at this stage, I am sure they have better things to be doing. If every wannabe composer were to call them they would be inundated.

I dont think this kind of flippant answer is the best way to answer. I hope you are more patient with your clients...

All you said was "start with WestOne", as if they are simply a phone call away.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 27, 2017)

procreative said:


> I understand that! Whats the length of samples to send to this type of library to get the ball rolling as surely they dont have time to listen to loads of 3 minute tracks?


I would put together a brief show reel of 4-5 tracks, no track longer than 20-30 seconds and a CV. Then send them a nice email with a link. Leave it a month and then follow it up with a phone call to ask whether or not they have listened to it.


----------



## procreative (Oct 27, 2017)

Daryl said:


> I would put together a brief show reel of 4-5 tracks, no track longer than 20-30 seconds and a CV. Then send them a nice email with a link. Leave it a month and then follow it up with a phone call to ask whether or not they have listened to it.



Thanks, good advice and thats definitely a good plan.


----------



## ColonelMarquand (Oct 27, 2017)

Writing albums is something further down the road. In my humble case, I don't do (or won't do) anything but albums from a purely selfish pov. Theres a lot of arguments/discussions with publishers on this score and I'm not sure who is right or wrong.
But put it this way. Music editors click through tracks at a very quick rate when placing a piece of music in a film or Tv program or whatever it is. Very quick, literally click............click...........click. My pov is if they're in an album, where I wrote all the tracks I get a better chance of landing a track than if I had say one track in an album of 15 tracks.
Mathematical evidence in my case backs this argument up but its fairly moot when it comes down to it.
Yes I will write a track to go in an album with other writers tracks. But only if its a reasonably interesting brief (had one lately actually) or if Ive got a track in a style of which Im only interested in writing one track and not 12.

Another thing is co-writing. I tend to stay away from that if possible because it cuts the money down. Only do that in my case if I think its to my advantage. Although co writing can and does work for a lot of writers.

If you get lucky, in the end the music editors get to know your work and taste and trust presumably makes up a lot of that. In other words they used you before and maybe remember your name or at least your labels. They may take more time over auditioning a track but it still guarantees nothing.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Oct 27, 2017)

procreative said:


> All you said was "start with WestOne", as if they are simply a phone call away.



Well, they are a call away. Just make the call!

But you already have other ideas in mind instead of calling. It seems like you already have the answers to your questions. So I will leave it alone. 

Good luck on your journey!


----------



## dannymc (Oct 27, 2017)

procreative said:


> So are you saying that even starting from nothing, dont get into RF? What libraries are there out there that dont set minimum track counts to be even considered? And are you working with just one if its exclusive?



This really depends on a few things. what style of music you write in, and what level of knowing your craft you are at. when i started composing from scratch i went in for the RF libraries just to get thing s going and start to understand how libraries work. done that for less than a year before i moved on. pretty much only deal with exclusives now but unlike others i have not had to go down the route of writing full albums for exclusives just yet. i think that is high risk if you are just starting. you could spend an awful lot of time and energy writing an album of 12 songs for the wrong library. instead i try to deal with exclusives that send out briefs from their clients and/or libraries that create themed compilation albums. therefore you will be one of a number of different composers on the album. it also means you can spread the risk if you do this across a number of different libraries.

and lastly as some others have said, distribution is key.

Danny


----------



## Uncle Peter (Oct 30, 2017)

Daryl said:


> They won't be accepting the music that you send them into their catalogue. If they decide to work with you, you'll get a brief, and then it would be on the understanding that they could reject your track. If you want to do a complete album, you'll have to prove yourself first.


They will if it's good enough and it plugs a hole in their existing repertoire. However, yes you're more likely to get it placed should you receive a brief first.


----------



## NathanRightnour (Oct 31, 2017)

Here are a few points that will be useful to writers who want to get into library music:

1. Perhaps most importantly, *put your best foot forward first*. Give them a specific way to use your skills. Don't go in saying "I can do family adventure and Hans Zimmer and Diplo EDM bangers".

Pick one or maybe two genres, because they already have a roster of writers, and they need to know _exactly _when to call you as they come up with new album ideas.

Albums come and go fast, and you either want to be (1) one of the 1-3 people they think of for a specific album they want to do, or (2) someone they want to start a new album with because you've shown them tracks in a specific style that they think will license.

Once you do a project with them and knock it out of the park, then they'll see your strengths and trust you to branch out.

2. *Make sure the library has great distribution* - there are new independent music libraries every day and almost all of them make around $0.

3. Learn the structure of library music (it's pretty simple) and don't expect them to license music you've already written for another project without some heavy editing. In many cases, it's easier to just write new music.

4. *Survey what's out there. *Be knowledgeable. Maybe even go in with an album idea and some tracks for it.

5. Something that isn't often brought up is that timing is surprisingly important. Libraries get a lot - a lot - of bad submissions and it's hard to go through them all if they already have good writers. If you don't hear from any good libraries the first time, keep aggressively improving your writing and production chops and try again in a couple months.

6. Just send a music link with a short, personable note and a thanks!


----------



## Desire Inspires (Oct 31, 2017)

NathanRightnour said:


> 2. *Make sure the library has great distribution* - there are new independent music libraries every day and almost all of them make around $0.



So independent music libraries are a waste of time in most cases. Interesting.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 31, 2017)

Desire Inspires said:


> So independent music libraries are a waste of time in most cases. Interesting.


Not necessarily. Look at their list of Sub Publishers before you make a decision.


----------



## NathanRightnour (Oct 31, 2017)

Desire Inspires said:


> So independent music libraries are a waste of time in most cases. Interesting.



It's a little more complicated. There are definitely fantastic boutique libraries that are small and can make you a lot of money. In fact, supervisors for huge trailers can favor boutiques because they know the tracks they rep haven't been heard by the public much, if at all. These are usually super-high-end and I typically wouldn't recommend them as a starting point - but anything is possible.

The main point I was making was more common sense and less grandiose - to watch out for libraries who make big claims but have little to back it up. There are so many of these that it's a little shocking. Hence my statement.

But I hate to sound skeptical. There are *many* great libraries out there, and worst case it’s great writing and production practice. Just make sure to do your homework


----------



## procreative (Nov 1, 2017)

NathanRightnour said:


> It's a little more complicated. There are definitely fantastic boutique libraries that are small and can make you a lot of money. In fact, supervisors for huge trailers can favor boutiques because they know the tracks they rep haven't been heard by the public much, if at all. These are usually super-high-end and I typically wouldn't recommend them as a starting point - but anything is possible.
> 
> The main point I was making was more common sense and less grandiose - to watch out for libraries who make big claims but have little to back it up. There are so many of these that it's a little shocking. Hence my statement.
> 
> But I hate to sound skeptical. There are *many* great libraries out there, and worst case it’s great writing and production practice. Just make sure to do your homework



How would you go about researching their distribution and do you have any recommendations?


----------



## dannymc (Nov 1, 2017)

procreative said:


> How would you go about researching their distribution and do you have any recommendations?



go to their websites and dig deep.

Danny


----------



## ColonelMarquand (Nov 1, 2017)

The trouble with the sub publisher (aka distributor)) thing, is its not much good looking up these publishers if you don't know who are any good in the first place. Same with a library that you're thinking of submitting to.
I'm not saying it's not a good idea to work through sub publisher lists at all, but you have to have at least an idea of what you're looking for. For example, APM in the US is a pretty rock solid one but they also have an enormous amount of albums on their books. Sonoton in Germany is another good one etc.


----------



## JohnnyBBad (Nov 1, 2017)

procreative said:


> Listen I appreciate the advice, but I hardly think telling me to dive straight in and call a multinational library is the answer alone.
> 
> And I doubt they would appreciate a call from me at this stage, I am sure they have better things to be doing. If every wannabe composer were to call them they would be inundated.
> 
> ...



It was a little harsh. I remember feeling intimidated when I started out 20 odd years ago, so I appreciate how a newbie feels. The surprise is that most people are really friendly and helpful, even if not forthcoming with a golden brief after the first five minutes of conversation!

There isn't a 'one way to do it', but my advice would be:

Make a list of which companies you want to call.
Call them and find out who the decision makers are and who you should talk to. Ask for direct phone numbers/email addresses. _Hint:_ _You'll seldom get them!_
Call them initially. Don't cop out with an 'introductory email'.
NEVER write a 'script' - they won't follow it, because they haven't seen it!
Don't worry if you make a complete 'tit' of yourself a couple of times - you'll be haunted by it, of course, but they'll forget about it, instantly. ...and it gives you something to guffaw about when you remember it years later!
ALWAYS follow up any conversations with a 'thank you for your time' email.
Have Fun!


----------



## procreative (Nov 1, 2017)

JohnnyBBad said:


> It was a little harsh. I remember feeling intimidated when I started out 20 odd years ago, so I appreciate how a newbie feels. The surprise is that most people are really friendly and helpful, even if not forthcoming with a golden brief after the first five minutes of conversation!
> 
> There isn't a 'one way to do it', but my advice would be:
> 
> ...



Thanks for the advice. I am not a total newbie, I have run my own design business for some 20+ years and know from that the decision makers never answer calls canvassing and sometimes even just trying to find out who the decision maker is seems impossible. "Dont call us we'll call you". Which is why I baulked at the previous advice...

Also I am a newbie professionally at this game, but I founded and played in a reasonably successful (for its genre) alternative band. Through this I secured deals for distribution in the UK, US, Germany and mainland Europe.

It was never enough to live off, but up until 2-3 years ago I was still getting small royalties trickling in, though since the advent of downloads these became very small payments...

What I know little about is this scene. Its hard to separate the low-ball RF players from the high-ball Exclusives.

Its also knowing where to start with no track record, RF seems least risk to start off and knowing my current limitations and status its pointless aiming too high. But equally there is no point submitting to libraries that have zero chance of either getting placements from or that have so much material that the chances of being found are also zero.

I don't expect people here to give me answers on a plate, just was hoping for either "stay away from [library]" or "these companies are great for RF", or these companies are great for "Non-Exclusive Licensed" etc.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Nov 1, 2017)

procreative said:


> Thanks for the advice. I am not a total newbie, I have run my own design business for some 20+ years and know from that the decision makers never answer calls canvassing and sometimes even just trying to find out who the decision maker is seems impossible. "Dont call us we'll call you". Which is why I baulked at the previous advice...
> 
> Also I am a newbie professionally at this game, but I founded and played in a reasonably successful (for its genre) alternative band. Through this I secured deals for distribution in the UK, US, Germany and mainland Europe.
> 
> ...



That is exactly why you need to call someone on the phone and listen to what they have to say. A good conversation (any conversation) is worth its weight in gold.

Don’t be afraid or worried about anything. The worst thing that can happen is that you find one less company to work with. Armed with that information, you can move forward with confidence to other companies.

So here are few libraries for you to contact:

Jingle Punks
Score Keepers
MIBE

You are welcome!


----------



## Jojilicus (Nov 1, 2017)

I haven't tried calling libraries on the phone simply because it seems like it would get annoying for the library owners. I sent an email to one of these companies


Desire Inspires said:


> Jingle Punks
> Score Keepers
> MIBE



and heard back in about 1 1/2 hours. I am writing for this company a lot now and every time I send an email, I hear back within a day or two.

-Joseph


----------



## ColonelMarquand (Nov 1, 2017)

I don't bother with phones or emails anymore. I use Skype and go virtual face to face.


----------



## ColonelMarquand (Nov 1, 2017)

And its cheaper.


----------



## SillyMidOn (Nov 1, 2017)

Jaap said:


> And be sure to read all the articles by Dan Graham (and purchase them if they are not online yet fully, worth every cent): https://www.soundonsound.com/music-business/all-about-library-music-part-1 (total of 7 articles so far)


All good suggestions in your post, but one needs to take those articles by Dan Graham, though there is a lot of truth in them, with a m-a-s-s-i-v-e pinch of salt.

For example the impact of the so-called royalty free libraries on the "normal" ones has been greatly understated. The old school libraries are suffering badly (as are the composers on the continuing decline of the mechanical royalties. Just one example. 

I also think his maths as to what one can earn somewhat off if you are starting now (not maybe 10-15 years ago) - it does give the impression it is reasonably easy to make a living if you write 50 tracks a year. I know people who have done this and they are earning peanuts. I have been to many a library composer get-together, and the vast majority have to do other jobs on the side to survive. Maybe 10% are earning a killing.


----------



## GtrString (Nov 1, 2017)

Music libraries tend to specialize in certain genres, so it would be wise to try to match the music you want to shop with appropriate libs. You will have to do some research to determine if a library is for you.


----------



## Jaap (Nov 1, 2017)

SillyMidOn said:


> All good suggestions in your post, but one needs to take those articles by Dan Graham, though there is a lot of truth in them, with a m-a-s-s-i-v-e pinch of salt.
> 
> For example the impact of the so-called royalty free libraries on the "normal" ones has been greatly understated. The old school libraries are suffering badly (as are the composers on the continuing decline of the mechanical royalties. Just one example.
> 
> I also think his maths as to what one can earn somewhat off if you are starting now (not maybe 10-15 years ago) - it does give the impression it is reasonably easy to make a living if you write 50 tracks a year. I know people who have done this and they are earning peanuts. I have been to many a library composer get-together, and the vast majority have to do other jobs on the side to survive. Maybe 10% are earning a killing.



I agree on some parts, specially the last part. I think this is where your skills needs to stand out and know exactly how to write AND produce effective and usable library music. Just writing and producing this amount of tracks and albums is not sufficient and this where the quality of the written material chimes in in my opinion.

I think it needs to be clear for anyone who aspires this a career path that it is a viable one, but it requires a tremendous amount of hard work, adjustment and what is good in those articles is that it stipulates exactly this. It is not to acquire fame or world wide recognition for your work, but if you are a good craftsman and willing to learn and invest a decent amount of time (just like with every other path in the wondrous world of music business) it can pay off.


----------



## ColonelMarquand (Nov 1, 2017)

I wouldn't mind someone pointing out some of the bullet points that are in that SOS report. I'm missing some of the points being made here. I can't read reams of material because of time constraints.

I would say that the quality of written material is less important than the quality of production. Arguably, how good or not writing is, may be down to individual taste, whereas production and sound quality is measurable.


----------



## Carles (Nov 1, 2017)

SillyMidOn said:


> All good suggestions in your post, but one needs to take those articles by Dan Graham, though there is a lot of truth in them, with a m-a-s-s-i-v-e pinch of salt.


Agreed that Dan (he's one of my publishers) being such a positive guy may sound too optimistic (despite his honesty as he speaks mostly about his own true experience), but it's also true as you say that times are changing constantly and the market can be more tough nowadays. However he's both, composer and publisher and he knows well how the market works currently (also true that we are all human and we are entitled to be wrong). The most important in those articles is to read and understand -the detail- too to avoid the "it gives the impression" conclusion.
For instance regarding the amount of tracks, there is a difference between the conclusion "write 50 tracks a year and you'll make nice money" (possibly what we would like to hear) and "write 50 -killer- tracks a year and place them through -great libraries- and it should pay off" (much more realistic but always given that you are talented first, also a hard worker, and lucky enough as per dropping your music in the right hands) so if you keep optimism aside, those articles are plenty of valuable information, just read carefully and make sure that understand the detail.

As per the scheme described in those articles, firstly you have to write -great original music- (producing 50 tracks that are practically variations of each other won't make it) and the music has to be finely produced too (producing quality takes a considerable amount of time thus the "small" amount tracks per year) but also the tracks not only have to sound good, they have to be useful to work to picture (as this is what the Production Music business is about).

After the effort you still got nothing other than a bunch of "good tracks" (see suitable and well produced, not necessarily a memorable masterpiece) in your hands, you also have to find a great publisher (not necessarily the biggest and more glamorous one), and then that publisher has to accept it, and they have to be not only great by themselves but also great about selling -your- genre.

After that, the music has to be chosen by the client, used and aired and then, depending on some factors it can make from peanuts to significant money. Once you got a track placed you won't get money right away, you still have to wait for publishers being paid first (it can take quite long) and (usually twice a year) you can get some sync/mechanicals royalties from them and about 4 times a year (intermediate payments might happen) your PRO will collect and pay Performance royalties (this also can take quite long) so you have to work really hard and in complete darkness for long time before making a cent, and once you start making some cents, still some years are needed (while keep working hard) until you can take any conclusions about if your material works or not as per having a living from it.

"For example the impact of the so-called royalty free libraries on the "normal" ones has been greatly understated. The old school libraries are suffering badly (as are the composers on the continuing decline of the mechanical royalties. Just one example."

That depends on the label/library. I seriously doubt that royalty free libraries will affect at all to Extreme Music / Two Steps from Hell (to put a superlative example) so between Extreme and AudioJungle there are all sort labels with all sort of quality, pricing and targeted market.
A very top end also exists in this business and everything in between, and while smaller labels can suffer from the grown RF market, other won't suffer at all as they never will cross paths (completely different clients). Some labels are suffering tough more from other schemes than the royalty free one.

But the market is huge, so there is some room for (quality) music. I strongly discourage to drop more rubbish to the pool, no matter how many tracks you'll produce a year. Even if you will produce 1.000 (rubbish) tracks, these would have the same impact on such a (rubbish) saturated market than a bit of dust in the ocean, and possibly degrade even more the low market (if that's still possible).

IMO, choose the quantity path only if you don't want to invest much time on quality but it's just fun for you and you're happy with little money every now and then considered as an extra for what's a cool hobby.

Otherwise, if you want to make a living out of it (unless you're extremely lucky for some reason) take it in a professional way with all what it implies, aim for quality first, and do expect really hard work and more often than not lots of frustration, and never discard that after all (and patience is key) you could end anyway not making it for whatever reason beyond your logic and effort.

Is certainly not a game for everyone. Not easy, but either impossible, all depends on a curios relationship between some key points, talent, dedication, vision, patience, sense for business and even luck, were strongest points may compensate the weaker.
That's why advice and orientation may be of help, but at the end everyone of us will run their own path, always carved by the above key points and their relationship (IMO).


----------



## Vicky (Nov 3, 2017)

Carles said:


> Some labels are suffering tough more from other schemes than the royalty free one.


Your post is so essential, Carles, thank you. But which schemes did you mean?


----------



## Carles (Nov 3, 2017)

(EDIT: Please take my advice with a grain of salt. Despite my extensive answers I'm still in the process of making it, and my knowledge about the business is limited and might be not necessarily accurate. Just trying to share what I know or believe to know)


Vicky said:


> But which schemes did you mean?


As I understand, actually no much different from the RF scheme in the sense that a sync license (per use) or buyout ("perpetual, through the Universe") can be purchased for little money, but unlike RF libraries (mostly aimed to small users, all sort of qualities but dominantly low) these aim to a higher professional market offering only high quality -exclusive- tracks.
Also some broadcasters creating their own libraries are hurting other libraries (no need to buy to other libraries anymore) and quite irrelevant individually, but a myriad of platforms (kind of "pseudo-libraries" and "job boards") where all sort of deals are offered, where your music is used practically for free (or literally for free) where profit is just an expectation, including custom work with no profit but exposure only...

While some schemes can hurt other libraries it doesn't mean that those deals are all bad for the composer. Then is when ethics can activate a bell or not. Some deals are fair (for the composer) and composers can make nice money, other deals are obviously abusive in first place (but just "easy" to get in for new composers). I find specially ridiculous those asking to take part of your writers share, and even more fun those where you have to even pay for submitting music.

I don't know, I'm not a successful composer (working on that, my goal is to achieve the equivalent of a salary by 2020) so my advice could be not the best, but based on my experiences in my former job as CG artist, I tend to think that comparing to more regular jobs can be useful sometimes (there is lots of abuse in the visual arts field too).

Let's put the example of a plumber and think what a plumber would do or not in these scenarios.

To me, working for a (reliable) label could be compared to a builder offering you the plumbing for a series of buildings, where you can be working on that project for long time, and meanwhile you are not making money but just the opposite, you have to even buy the materials, but once you finish the project you get paid so you can pay off the materials and your time and still having some profit.
Would a plumber accept that deal? Why not. As far as you have money enough for the materials and pay the bills during the life of the project it sounds like a quite standard deal.

What would happen if another builder offers a deal, where I have to do the above (investing on materials and work) but I have no money to invest and the deal is... "I can offer you a loan for the materials, you'll get paid this ridiculous percentage from my sales but only will get paid on a flat per flat basis once I'll sell a flat, otherwise if I won't sell at all you won't get paid at all, but you have to anyway pay the loan installments to me. Deal?".
Would a plumber accept that deal? most likely not, no matter if one is starting in the business or not, that's just too risky.
Even more, that builder profit might be not based only on the property buyers, but also on the providers too (and even mostly on these) so plumbers themselves, and carpenters and so on, making a neat profit through the inflated interest of the loans for materials. Like this, leaving ethics aside they can have maximum profit with absolutely zero risk  As far as they will find plumbers and carpenters naive enough to get into the trap they can have the most lucrative building business ever where they always win, while you can make peanuts, won't make a cent at all or even cost you your time and money. No bad, uh? 

My conclusion is that if a deal deal sounds like lacking ethics (even if subtle) just run away and don't look back. Is plenty of profitable boutiques around there managed by nice guys offering fair deals. Just make sure that you know who's behind and their ethics. As far as they can place your stuff you should be in good hands then.


----------



## SillyMidOn (Nov 5, 2017)

Carles said:


> I seriously doubt that royalty free libraries will affect at all to Extreme Music / Two Steps from Hell (to put a superlative example) so between Extreme and AudioJungle there are all sort labels with all sort of quality, pricing and targeted market.
> A very top end also exists in this business and everything in between, and while smaller labels can suffer from the grown RF market, other won't suffer at all as they never will cross paths (completely different clients). Some labels are suffering tough more from other schemes than the royalty free one.



Woaaahhh, well, let me enlighten you.

I am writing this from the background of looking primarily at the UK market, but the US market has also been affected in a similar way. So, in the UK we have a rate card that all MCSP/PRS libraries have to adhere to:

https://prsformusic.com/licences/using-production-music/about-production-music

They *cannot *undercut these rates, so they are 100% bound by these. 

In 2001 Audionetwork were founded, and they did not sign up to the rate card - their business model was simple: we will undercut the PRS rates, and that way get a foothold in the market. To begin with their music was pretty bad, but slowly, they improved the quality of their music. Slowly the established libraries started to get worried, as suddenly they were on the phone to a production assistant, telling them "Well we want to use your track, but Audionetwork {or any other RF library} can offer me a similar track for less money" and the PRS library could then not undercut the RF library, sounds bizarre, but true. So Audionework, and other RF libraries market share grew and grew. Fast forward to now, and Audionetwork's output is really good, in fact they are recording orchestral stuff LIVE at Abbey Road (check you their facebook page). So now you have a real problem: an independent library has a really good orchestral track made with samples, and Audionetwork has a live orchestral track AND they want less money for the license. Who do you think the producer of the show is going to go for? Now you mentioned Extreme Music, which is one of the big 4 libraries in the UK, the others being Universal, Warner Brothers and KPM (EMI). Extreme is actually owned by Sony, and has always been a bit apart, as it is not a very broad library but tends to specialise in certain styles more than others (when the library started as an independent library before it was bought by Sony, their whole selling pitch was that their music was extreme in nature). The other three mentioned are very broad, and indeed are made up of loads of different labels. As you may know EMI was sold and split up, and the library arm, KPM, went to Sony, so Sony now have a very broad catalogue after all. Now when I say that all libraries, from the smaller independents to the excellent top indies t the top 4 I mentioned have been affected, you will have to be believe, because I now this first hand (I do not want to blow my own trumpet here in flipping well have to spell out why - get it?). Mention Audionetwork to any library owner in the Uk and they will groan. In fact there has been even more bad news because of this this year, which really made me sit up and say "Good Lord, that is bad", but I don't wan to say what/why for reasons of my own.




Carles said:


> As per the scheme described in those articles, firstly you have to write -great original music- (producing 50 tracks that are practically variations of each other won't make it) and the music has to be finely produced too (producing quality takes a considerable amount of time thus the "small" amount tracks per year) but also the tracks not only have to sound good, they have to be useful to work to picture (as this is what the Production Music business is about).



See 50 tracks is just not enough, it's a bit of a joke. These days I do the library stuff as a bit of a side-line, and I write about 35-50 tracks a year. If that were all I'd do a year, I'd have a one day working week. Ha.

General perception is that you need 400-600 tracks to start making a living. If you write only 50 a year, you are 
a) too slow/and/or lazy
b) at that rate it would take you, assuming you need 600 tracks, 12 years to make a living - hilarious.

No I realise people want feel-good "there's only Plan A" type of posts, but this is the state of affairs, the way I see it in my not inconsiderable time in the industry. I don't want to be a doom-monger, and indeed I often try to chip in with useful info to newcomers where possible, but this is the state of affairs as I (and others ) see it. There is money to be made, there will be more successful library musicians coming through, no doubt, some will make great money, but the business as a whole is getting tougher.


----------



## Carles (Nov 5, 2017)

SillyMidOn said:


> In 2001 Audionetwork were founded, and they did not sign up to the rate card - their business model was simple: we will undercut the PRS rates, and that way get a foothold in the market.


Thanks for clarifying. I was told Audionetwork did bypass MCPS but adhered to PRS (even more reinforced that idea the fact that Audionetwork owner was PRS chairman last year which would sound quite contradictory otherwise, but I trust what you say, of course).



SillyMidOn said:


> but Audionetwork {or any other RF library} can offer me a similar track for less money" and the PRS library could then not undercut the RF library, sounds bizarre, but true


It doesn't sound bizarre to me. We see that often in all sort of markets (and the reason for the different classes within those markets) and all sort of buyers, from people buying bad quality to save a penny to people wasting insane of money merely to exhibit a given brand or logo (I'm on the side of those trying to find a fair balance between quality and price).



SillyMidOn said:


> an independent library has a really good orchestral track made with samples, and Audionetwork has a live orchestral track AND they want less money for the license. Who do you think the producer of the show is going to go for?


My tracks are getting placed and 95% of those are made with samples (so far only one track with live players was placed).
I guess it happen that sometimes the track might have a better fit to the visual content (for any reason) independently on how it was produced? I don't know. But in my experience, despite your sentence it effectively works.



SillyMidOn said:


> See 50 tracks is just not enough,


I also think so. Not saying that is not possible (outstanding tracks + great subpublishers + good luck perhaps could do) but at the moment I'm over 100 tracks this year (and counting) while keeping production value as high as I can (lots of work actually). I do expect to have at least over 400 tracks for 2020. If with 400+ tracks it won't be enough then I'll leave the job and will back to my former job, not the end of the World, but at least I'm trying to make it happen. If I won't give it even a chance then is granted that it won't happen.



SillyMidOn said:


> There is money to be made, there will be more successful library musicians coming through, no doubt, some will make great money, but the business as a whole is getting tougher.


Nobody is saying that's easy. Since I got interested on this just a few years back I never known a time when it was easier (heard about only). I know it's a tough deal and I've expressed myself that's not a game for everyone.
But what should we do, leave right away our current publishers and try to get all our further production into Audionetwork? (you're implying that even the 4 biggest subpublishers won't have a chance to survive the RF battle)


----------



## Desire Inspires (Nov 5, 2017)

SillyMidOn said:


> No I realise people want feel-good "there's only Plan A" type of posts, but this is the state of affairs, the way I see it in my not inconsiderable time in the industry. I don't want to be a doom-monger, and indeed I often try to chip in with useful info to newcomers where possible, but this is the state of affairs as I (and others ) see it. There is money to be made, there will be more successful library musicians coming through, no doubt, some will make great money, but the business as a whole is getting tougher.



There is absolutely nothing wrong with doom-and-gloom posts. They remind people to be vigilant and to get focused.


----------



## dannymc (Nov 6, 2017)

Desire Inspires said:


> There is absolutely nothing wrong with doom-and-gloom posts. They remind people to be vigilant and to get focused.



you're right there is nothing wrong with them at all. and actually i think they are useful to demonstrate a composers resolve. if they are enough to make you get disheartened and feel its impossible then you have already ended your chances of ever succeeding. on the other hand you can take on board the informative information, apply it into your strategy and continue to be the best composer you can be. sure its like everything else out there that is extremely competitive, probably 5% will succeed and the other 95% will fail but is that enough of a reason not to try and be in that 5%? 

Carles i would just continue to follow your own path and doors will keep opening i'm sure. especially if you have a positive outlook. also surround yourself with successful people if you can, those who are doing music full time. thats what i do, i dont have time for people who complain that the world is pitched against them. 

Danny


----------



## SillyMidOn (Nov 6, 2017)

Carles said:


> Thanks for clarifying. I was told Audionetwork did bypass MCPS but adhered to PRS (even more reinforced that idea the fact that Audionetwork owner was PRS chairman last year which would sound quite contradictory otherwise, but I trust what you say, of course).



Apologise if I was unclear here - the MCPS and PRS are pretty much one entity these days, hence people call it the MCPS/PRS alliance, and people often refer to the PRS rate card - even the PRS does (not the MCPS/PRS rate card, too much of a mouthful). 
So to be clear RF libraries undercut the Mechanical rates/sync rates set in the MCPS/PRS rate card that I linked to in my previous post.

The performance royalties are not something publisher get directly involved in afaik/can quote for - these are set by territory/type of show/size of network - basically the more people are likely to watch that show the more performance royalties are likely to be.

Having said that, and I've spoken to library owners about this - I have seen some real oddities, where you get a big placement in a show, and the sync fee is low, but the PRO payment high, and vice versa. You'd have to have the mind-set of an accountant to want to figure it out.




Carles said:


> It doesn't sound bizarre to me. We see that often in all sort of markets (and the reason for the different classes within those markets) and all sort of buyers, from people buying bad quality to save a penny to people wasting insane of money merely to exhibit a given brand or logo (I'm on the side of those trying to find a fair balance between quality and price).



I guess what I am trying to say is that the MCPS/PRS rate system, though I 100% support it, is akin to a communist style way of regulating the market, whereas the market is actually still allowed to be open, which is why the RF libraries can undercut. It is a little bizarre.




Carles said:


> My tracks are getting placed and 95% of those are made with samples (so far only one track with live players was placed).
> I guess it happen that sometimes the track might have a better fit to the visual content (for any reason) independently on how it was produced? I don't know. But in my experience, despite your sentence it effectively works.



I didn't say you can't place tracks with samples. I was outlining how Audionetwork have gone from pitching pretty awful tracks back in 2001 to being able to undercut competitors and offer a potentially superior product as it is recorded live in a famous venue - for some people this is a great selling point.



Carles said:


> I also think so. Not saying that is not possible (outstanding tracks + great subpublishers + good luck perhaps could do) but at the moment I'm over 100 tracks this year (and counting) while keeping production value as high as I can (lots of work actually). I do expect to have at least over 400 tracks for 2020. If with 400+ tracks it won't be enough then I'll leave the job and will back to my former job, not the end of the World, but at least I'm trying to make it happen. If I won't give it even a chance then is granted that it won't happen.



Well I truly wish it works out for, 400 tracks by 2020 sounds like a great plan! 



Carles said:


> Nobody is saying that's easy. Since I got interested on this just a few years back I never known a time when it was easier (heard about only). I know it's a tough deal and I've expressed myself that's not a game for everyone.
> But what should we do, leave right away our current publishers and try to get all our further production into Audionetwork? (you're implying that even the 4 biggest subpublishers won't have a chance to survive the RF battle)



I didn't imply that they have no chance - I indicated that they have been negatively impacted by this. Music supervisors always have their preferred libraries. I'm not telling anyone to give up. In that case if you looked at divorce rates, no-one would sensibly get married, if you look at the rate at which business fail in their first year, no-one would start a business, and if you looked at how many teachers quite their jobs in their first year, no-one would become a teacher.

On a side note, I spoke to two KPM writers who started in the 80s at one of the numerous library Christmas parties I have been to (though it wasn't actually a KPM Christmas party). They told me that back in the late 80s/early 90s (if memory serves me correctly) they could get away with doing one album a year - wow! The Mechanicals used to be that big.

Going across the Atlantic I know from the US publishers I have done work for that the mechanical royalties there used to be much much better, but have now greatly reduced, or at times don't exist. So some networks/shows just won't offer to pay mechanical royalties, or they do it a for a blanket fee for the library. It is then up to the library whether they will divide up the blanket fee they get amongst the writers correctly, or just pocket it for themselves (which quite a few do).

There is another interesting thread here composer's rates going down, based on a survey:

https://vi-control.net/community/th...-looking-pretty-ugly.5166/page-2#post-4143117


----------



## Daryl (Nov 6, 2017)

Carles said:


> Thanks for clarifying. I was told Audionetwork did bypass MCPS but adhered to PRS (even more reinforced that idea the fact that Audionetwork owner was PRS chairman last year which would sound quite contradictory otherwise, but I trust what you say, of course).


Yes Audio Network is a PRS library. Just not an MCPS library.


----------



## Daryl (Nov 6, 2017)

SillyMidOn said:


> On a side note, I spoke to two KPM writers who started in the 80s at one of the numerous library Christmas parties I have been to (though it wasn't actually a KPM Christmas party). They told me that back in the late 80s/early 90s (if memory serves me correctly) they could get away with doing one album a year - wow! The Mechanicals used to be that big.



I used to do one or two albums a year, and a three album year was a big library year for me, and I didn't start until 1999. it would still be possible, if I was still writing for KPM. It only seems difficult for the first 3-4 years. Actually the biggest issue is not necessarily the reduction in sync/mechanical fees, it's the life of a track. In the old days, when everything was recorded, a track was expected to last 15-20 years. These days you're looking at 5-8 years, or less, especially for sample based compositions. I still have albums, from as long ago as 2001, making good money (not as much as previously), but they are well written (even if I say so myself...!) and well recorded/mixed. I doubt that there are many sample based compositions from that era earning anything, unless they are being used for that historic sound.


----------



## Carles (Nov 6, 2017)

SillyMidOn said:


> The performance royalties are not something publisher get directly involved in afaik/can quote for - these are set by territory/type of show/size of network - basically the more people are likely to watch that show the more performance royalties are likely to be.


Correct, we are talking about the same then.
I wanted to skip mentioning names when describing that "other scheme" but meant certainly Audionetwork (Pandemic and other look more like standard RF's to me, not so Audionetwork).
As I understood, one key point between any RF and Audionetwork is that while a typical RF library don't care about performance royalties (despite the intentionally misleading "royalty free" definition, technically speaking, even if unpractical you still can track the usage and fill the cuesheet yourself if ever broadcast though as it has nothing to do with publishers but broadcasters) or even some of these RF libraries do systematically reject any tracks registered with a PRO, the Audionetwork scheme is specially favorable for the composers to get performance royalties since the low priced syncs may increase the amount of placements and consequently the amount of performance royalties. I did read some composers testimonials telling that while syncs were not great (but nice anyway) performance royalties literally "went to the ceiling".
I didn't know about their early low quality (BTW thanks for all the info) but certainly their current catalogue sounds pretty good to my ears.
I would not consider Audionetwork as a typical royalty free library, but a particular scheme offering the best of both, RF and traditional.

What I meant in my first post is that while (typical) RF could not damage much the big boys (mostly the rest, the smaller the worst) find more scaring the Audionetwork scheme as it can reach much higher.

While some supervisors can ignore RF libraries (not all supervisors obviously, because despite the the "low quality stamp" good tracks can be found in there. But is still time consuming to find a proper track within the immense pile of rubbish) the Audionetwork scheme (cheaper syncs, pre-filtered good quality) works well for supervisors and apparently also composers. This scheme can hurt all libraries around, big guys included as they are crossing paths in the very same market and even inviting composers to jump to the other boat.




SillyMidOn said:


> I didn't imply that they have no chance - I indicated that they have been negatively impacted by this. Music supervisors always have their preferred libraries. I'm not telling anyone to give up. In that case if you looked at divorce rates, no-one would sensibly get married,


Very true :D Actually my question was quite rhetoric and indeed find concerning that even the big guys might have bad time or even affraid of a time where we can witness their fall (there is always a probability).

IMO, worst would be that once a new dominating scheme would take place over (i.e. Audionetwork-like) then, it would be too naive to believe that the happy composer status would last forever. Competition is tough and surely the rates would become even lower and/or the composer's share would be smaller.
As far as people can make great money by cutting down their collaborators cut (and/or aggressively hacking their competitors) and these collaborators (i.e. composers in our case) keep accepting those cut downs, the race to the bottom is just granted (no matter the scheme).

I don't know, for someone short time in business like me, it would sound like going the faster RF route (even better the Audionetwork one) could work better in short term, however the fairy who lives in my shoulder persists on that it's a good idea to support the traditional scheme and try to keep some dignity for the future of all of us, rather than making some quick money now at the price of contributing to "the race to the bottom" making our future more and more tougher.
Long story short, for now I'm with the traditional scheme (Hi Daryl!), if these boutiques won't work out, well, no panic, there are more cool jobs to do out there, but if it works and my contribution helps to keep the traditional scheme... may we have some decent future!

I'd rather prefer to complement with additional work paid shorter (work for hire, or doing detailed mockups for other busy composers, or something alike) than (in order to grab quicker money now via libraries) be a contributor to create a worst future degrading even more an already degraded production music scheme.
(just my personal point of view)


----------



## Carles (Nov 6, 2017)

Daryl said:


> I used to do one or two albums a year, and a three album year was a big library year for me, and I didn't start until 1999. it would still be possible, if I was still writing for KPM. It only seems difficult for the first 3-4 years. Actually the biggest issue is not necessarily the reduction in sync/mechanical fees, it's the life of a track. In the old days, when everything was recorded, a track was expected to last 15-20 years. These days you're looking at 5-8 years, or less, especially for sample based compositions. I still have albums, from as long ago as 2001, making good money (not as much as previously), but they are well written (even if I say so myself...!) and well recorded/mixed. I doubt that there are many sample based compositions from that era earning anything, unless they are being used for that historic sound.


Quality is key.
Daryl, my most sincere thanks not only for being fortunate enough as per having tracks in your catalogue but for the labour (and investment) you are doing to preserve a top quality traditional scheme that should work best for all of us long run.


----------



## Daryl (Nov 7, 2017)

Carles said:


> What I meant in my first post is that while (typical) RF could not damage much the big boys (mostly the rest, the smaller the worst) find more scaring the Audionetwork scheme as it can reach much higher.


Yes and no. One of the reasons that AN has had a reasonably good run in the UK is the ability to undercut. In the US, for example, that advantage is much less, which is one reason why it hasn't and probably won't do much better than it already is doing.

The other thing is that whilst the more established catalogues no doubt have a load of rubbish in them, there is so much stuff that you can pretty much get a good track in any genre you like. That isn't the case with AN, being much much smaller, hence them losing quite a few gigs in the UK recently.


Carles said:


> Long story short, for now I'm with the traditional scheme (Hi Daryl!), if these boutiques won't work out, well, no panic, there are more cool jobs to do out there, but if it works and my contribution helps to keep the traditional scheme... may we have some decent future!


Hi Carles..


----------



## Daryl (Nov 7, 2017)

Carles said:


> Quality is key.


For me, I believe so, particularly in terms of shelf life of tracks.



Carles said:


> Daryl, my most sincere thanks not only for being fortunate enough as per having tracks in your catalogue but for the labour (and investment) you are doing to preserve a top quality traditional scheme that should work best for all of us long run.


As L'Oréal says, "you're worth it".


----------



## ColonelMarquand (Nov 7, 2017)

Live orchestra is a good thing to have going for you, but in the end it doesn't make that much difference. If the only criteria for a music editor was that the music has to be recorded live, choices would be very limited. And of course, it's easy to forget that the world doesn't revolve around orchestral music when it comes to to Tv and film usage.


----------



## Daryl (Nov 7, 2017)

ColonelMarquand said:


> Live orchestra is a good thing to have going for you, but in the end it doesn't make that much difference.



Really? Do you have evidence to support that? All the people I speak to say that a real orchestra sounds way better than any sample based performance, when you play them back to back. In my experience, if you had the same track played with samples and then with orchestra, assuming that the track was actually written for orchestra, music editors would go for the live one every time.

Where it can make no difference, or even be better with samples, is when the track is deliberately written to the samples, and wouldn't work as well with a live orchestra.


----------



## ColonelMarquand (Nov 7, 2017)

There many reasons why a properly orchestrated track should do better than a sample based track. If I was writing constantly for orchestral material, then I would much prefer a good live recording, but there are so many reasons that point to why a lot of people wouldn't want to be bothered with that.
Like cost.
Like time consumption.
Like it didn't seem to matter 7 times today on BBC1 in my case. 

The points you made about about sample tracks from say around 10 or so years ago are valid. But orchestral sample libraries have evolved a long way since then, and I'm not convinced that music editors are that bothered when the amount of dialogue and sound efx on top of any music generally doesn't make a tv audience sit up and say, 'Wow! Spitfire Audio samples really need to get their act together!'

Anecdotal evidence points to a lot of old timers in the library business saying that their best paid tracks are sample based versus real orchestral recording. But again, you could also argue their writing may not have been good enough, or the recording let it down and a myriad of other reasons contributing to further excuses.

Ergo, not convinced that music editors are necessarily going to say to themselves this has got to be a real recording. Can't see the evidence pointing that way at the moment.


----------



## Daryl (Nov 7, 2017)

ColonelMarquand said:


> Ergo, not convinced that music editors are necessarily going to say to themselves this has got to be a real recording. Can't see the evidence pointing that way at the moment.


Fair enough. Your choice.


----------



## ColonelMarquand (Nov 8, 2017)

Daryl said:


> Fair enough. Your choice.



Yes it wouldn't necessarily be my choice. It's more a matter of practicalities. If you read what I said, it more or less agrees with your point of view but unfortunately, in the real world afaic, it's more like getting the odd one or two live players on a track as opposed to full blown studio time with orchestral combos of varying sizes.


----------



## Daryl (Nov 8, 2017)

ColonelMarquand said:


> Yes it wouldn't necessarily be my choice. It's more a matter of practicalities. If you read what I said, it more or less agrees with your point of view but unfortunately, in the real world afaic, it's more like getting the odd one or two live players on a track as opposed to full blown studio time with orchestral combos of varying sizes.


Actually I did read what you said, and I still maintain that it is your choice. I always use live players on my tracks and wouldn't write for a catalogue that insisted on samples. My choice.


----------



## mOKa (Feb 23, 2022)

Desire Inspires said:


> That is exactly why you need to call someone on the phone and listen to what they have to say. A good conversation (any conversation) is worth its weight in gold.
> 
> Don’t be afraid or worried about anything. The worst thing that can happen is that you find one less company to work with. Armed with that information, you can move forward with confidence to other companies.
> 
> ...


Hi, sry to bother, but I followed your tip and reached out via Jingle Punks website. I assume they are very busy, but its been ~6 weeks and now I am bit worried. I used soundcloud private links, but there havent been any plays. Do you know or does someone else know, how long, if at all, they are currently taking to revisit applicants? Should I wait or try again. Thank you.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Feb 23, 2022)

mOKa said:


> Hi, sry to bother, but I followed your tip and reached out via Jingle Punks website. I assume they are very busy, but its been ~6 weeks and now I am bit worried. I used soundcloud private links, but there havent been any plays. Do you know or does someone else know, how long, if at all, they are currently taking to revisit applicants? Should I wait or try again. Thank you.


I don't think Desire Inspires is on the forum anymore. Regarding your question though, six weeks or longer isn't unheard of. Crucial Music, for example, usually takes 3-4 months to respond to a submission (as with many other library companies). I also naturally assume that no one will even listen (or respond) to a submission, that way there's no disappointment on my end. In the meantime, keep writing and submitting to other companies; there's plenty of them out here.


----------

