# Music libraries -



## Soundhound

A few threads here have piqued my interest about music libraries, I'd never thought about it before as a possible income stream. I've subscribed to the Music Library Report and have been reading Emmet Cooke's book and am starting to get a vague idea of how it works/can work etc. I'm just scratching the surface...

I have quite a lot of cues from short films I've scored, including lots of pieces that I liked but that didn't make final cut or the mood went a different way etc... I can write pretty quickly and in a variety of styles. Plus some pieces I've done commercially, and lots of songs w/vocals as well...

I'm just wondering, does anyone here generate good income from music library sales? I don't mean to be intrusive or rude, I hope it doesn't come off that way! I'm just wondering if it's a realistic option for a revenue stream. I think I'd be completely into doing all the work that's necessary to get up and running and test the waters (I love writing, filing and submitting not so much, but I can get into OCD mode when necessary )

Thanks!


----------



## Greg

I'd say you should go for it! Why let those older cues sit around collecting dust when they could have a chance at getting licensing or royalty revenue? Focus most of your effort on getting the cues to be production music / editor friendly, then pitch them away to libraries.


----------



## Mike Marino

+1 to Greg.

Finish reading Emmett's book and just do it.


----------



## RiffWraith

Soundhound @ Tue Apr 08 said:


> I'm just wondering, does anyone here generate good income from music library sales? I don't mean to be intrusive or rude, I hope it doesn't come off that way! I'm just wondering if it's a realistic option for a revenue stream.



I am with Mike and Greg.

It can be a good revenue stream, but don't think you can get a couple hundred tracks into a few libs, and start seeing some nice returns several months down the road. It takes 9 mos. (many times more) to see ANY money after your first placement... and your first placement may not come for several months after you submit your tracks. Of course you may get lucky and get some placements right away, but it usually takes time. And the first check you get will be small - don't expect to be putting a downpayment on a house. 

If you want to have a really good, solid revenue stream from music libraries, expect it to take a couple of years before you start seeing good money, and understand that you are going need a couple of thousand tracks spread out over several libs to achieve this.

Cheers.


----------



## Soundhound

Thanks guys. And I hear you about it taking time and effort. From what I've been reading my guess is if it goes moderately well, once it gets rolling it could result in $10k or 20k a year and if it goes really well, maybe 50k? Does that seem like a reasonable expectation/goal?


----------



## windshore

Think those are nice numbers but highly unrealistic. Perhaps if you have a few thousand cues and are able to get them into a library who's aggressively placing them....


----------



## Soundhound

Is that right? Hmmmm, I might need to rethink this then...




windshore @ Mon Apr 07 said:


> Think those are nice numbers but highly unrealistic. Perhaps if you have a few thousand cues and are able to get them into a library who's aggressively placing them....


----------



## RiffWraith

With a couple thousand cues, and a TON of placements, after 2-3 years, 50k/yr. is not at all unrealistic. Otherwise, it is.

Cheers.


----------



## doctornine

RiffWraith @ Tue Apr 08 said:


> With a couple thousand cues, and a TON of placements, after 2-3 years, 50k/yr. is not at all unrealistic. Otherwise, it is.
> 
> Cheers.



Yup, you need around a thousand cues with very aggressive marketing from the library before you get into that territory and I'd say you're looking at longer than 2 to 3 years as well, more like 5 to 10, before that kind of revenue starts popping into your bank account….

Library is not a fast money maker, but if you play the long slow game, it's certainly do-able.

~o)


----------



## Daryl

There are so many facets to library music that nobody has the same experiences. However, I can say that wherever you place your music, you are up against people who have written specifically for library, using live players, and often recorded at some of the best studios in the world, so your music has to have something extra in order to be successful.

Or you can just cr*p out a few thousand tracks using GM sounds and hope that a few pennies stick to each one. :wink: 

D


----------



## AC986

Daryl @ Tue Apr 08 said:


> However, I can say that wherever you place your music, you are up against people who have written specifically for library, using live players, and often recorded at some of the best studios in the world,
> 
> D



That's dead right of course. 

Just churning out tracks and expecting a (responsible to their composers) music library company to just place them hither and thither is unrealistic in today's market. 
Most, if not all of the time, you have to write in a style in album format. Say 10 to 15 tracks for instance (maybe different, but roughly).

Getting into a music library company is hard enough. If you can do that, then they must like what you're doing and you have a good chance. If you're a bit of a plodder like me, getting a 1000 plus tracks could take several centuries to achieve though.

I had a track played yesterday a couple of times (hopefully more) and when I actually 
get to hear a track I did on TV, I regard it as a minor miracle because I have so few tracks currently.


----------



## Ed

Man my tracks must be doing really well then..... :/


----------



## Stephen Rees

Ed @ Tue Apr 08 said:


> Man my tracks must be doing really well then..... :/



A big plus 1 on that.

A thousand tracks plus to make $50k dollars a year (and I'm assuming we are including broadcast royalties here too)? Find better libraries to work with. A few tracks with a good library are worth a few hundred with a bad one.


----------



## Oliver_Codd

Stephen Rees @ Tue Apr 08 said:


> Ed @ Tue Apr 08 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man my tracks must be doing really well then..... :/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A big plus 1 on that. If you need a thousand tracks to make $50k dollars a year (and I'm assuming we are including broadcast royalties here too) you need to find better libraries to work with. A few tracks with a good library are worth a few hundred with a bad one.
Click to expand...


Absolutely. To take that one step further, a few GREAT tracks will do better than 50 mediocre ones. People get so caught up in quantity that I think they forget about quality. I've seen single tracks perform so well in the trailer world that they could easily generate enough income to buy a house.


----------



## Stephen Rees

Oliver_Codd @ Tue Apr 08 said:


> Stephen Rees @ Tue Apr 08 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ed @ Tue Apr 08 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man my tracks must be doing really well then..... :/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A big plus 1 on that. If you need a thousand tracks to make $50k dollars a year (and I'm assuming we are including broadcast royalties here too) you need to find better libraries to work with. A few tracks with a good library are worth a few hundred with a bad one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely. To take that one step further, a few GREAT tracks will do better than 50 mediocre ones. People get so caught up in quantity that I think they forget about quality. I've seen single tracks perform so well in the trailer world that they could easily generate enough income to buy a house.
Click to expand...


*nods head in complete agreement*


----------



## mscottweber

I think its important to note, too, that there are different types of libraries that specialize in different kinds of music and cater to different clientele and at different price points. If you are really good and quick at writing U2/Coldplay style pop rock tracks, you could make decent money selling through low-tier royalty free libraries. Those same tracks might not do so hot through mid-tier broadcast libraries. Likewise, epic hybrid tracks that make a killing in the upper-tier trailer market may not sell at all in cheapo RF libraries.


----------



## RiffWraith

Stephen Rees @ Tue Apr 08 said:


> A thousand tracks plus to make $50k dollars a year (and I'm assuming we are including broadcast royalties here too)?



Actually, we are talking ONLY broadcast royalties, and we are NOT talking trailers. If you start throwing in trailers and sync fees, etc., then the game changes completely. If you are talking simply submitting your tracks to a few libs, and if you are looking at only perf. royalties... then the 2-3 yrs/few thousand tracks to get to 50k scenario is accurate. Unless of course, you get really lucky, and a track of yours gets chosen as the main title theme for a show on network TV that airs 5 nights/wk, then goes into syndication. But how often does that happen?

Cheers.


----------



## Stephen Rees

@Riffwraith - Well all I can say to that is that I'm very glad my experience is quite different to that.


----------



## Soundhound

Glad to see this part of the discussion. I went to some of the libraries and the quality of the music didn't seem all that high. Are the better quality libraries you guys are referring to on the Music Library Report? If so, what distinguishes them, higher pricing? (I've only looked at a few listed on MLR so far...)

I don't mind hard work, and when it's composing I love hard work! But thousands of tracks... I don't know if I could write thousands of tracks. I have tons of stuff sitting around, and am writing more all the time, but it's in the hundreds I would think, not thousands. 

I'm getting some stuff together and will post a soundcloud link, would love to know what you guys think. It's taking a little time, got new instruments I want to use/going back to something I always hear it differently, want to polish, clean up, mix etc. (It ain't done till the clock on the wall says it's done! I know I have to cool it with that to some degree with something like this...)




Oliver_Codd @ Tue Apr 08 said:


> Stephen Rees @ Tue Apr 08 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ed @ Tue Apr 08 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man my tracks must be doing really well then..... :/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A big plus 1 on that. If you need a thousand tracks to make $50k dollars a year (and I'm assuming we are including broadcast royalties here too) you need to find better libraries to work with. A few tracks with a good library are worth a few hundred with a bad one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely. To take that one step further, a few GREAT tracks will do better than 50 mediocre ones. People get so caught up in quantity that I think they forget about quality. I've seen single tracks perform so well in the trailer world that they could easily generate enough income to buy a house.
Click to expand...


----------



## Stephen Rees

If the quality of the music you've heard at a library is bad, the chances are the library is not great.

I really don't think it is that hard to tell a good library from a bad. Here's a good one….

https://www.extrememusic.com

I have 16 tracks with this library. I haven't written for them for a number of years. Those 16 tracks consistently year on year get me a significant proportion of that $50k total. Not a thousand tracks. Not 500 tracks. But 16 tracks. They are rarely placed in trailers. None of them are high profile theme tunes.

I would say write great tracks and only pitch them to the very best libraries. If you fail in your pitches, write better ones and only pitch them to the best libraries. Repeat until you are successful.

Who wants to write 2-3000 tracks every 2 or 3 years? That is 2 to 3 tracks per day. Every day. They aren't going to be your best work at that speed. How would that be satisfying?

I write on average a track a week. Sometimes less. Interesting briefs. Broad deadlines. It just doesn't have to be the 'crank out zillions of tracks for pennies and you might just scrape a living' approach. If I had to do that I'd just do something else for a living. I'd be utterly miserable.

Fortunately I don't have to do that. And neither do you Soundhound  Seriously, don't be put off. You can do it, you can be paid well for it, and you can enjoy it. You can have it all.


----------



## RiffWraith

Stephen - I am glad that the lib situation is working out for you.

First off, nobody said that you need to write 2-3000 tracks per year.

Secondly, you are giving the impression that 16 tracks can earn you about 30-35k per year. That is absolutely in no way the norm. Of course it can happen, but people who are new to this should not have this false hope that they can write about 20 tracks, and be making about 35k per year.

Cheers.


----------



## chillbot

Another approach... why not get paid to write for libraries? Clearly if it was that easy we all would be doing it. However.... where is the music you are currently writing going? Who owns it? What happens to it after it airs (if it airs)? The definition of "library music" could simply be 20-30 cues that you did for show A for network (or production company) X and then because network X owns the music they turn around and use it for show B and if you're really lucky show C and D as well. Do you have any work-for-hire projects? Once you're done with the project you could try to make a deal to shop the music around to other libraries and split the publishing however is fair. That way instead of music sitting on the shelf unused, everyone can make money from it. I wouldn't say this is a super easy thing to do, but it is possible and not very uncommon, at least in LA. I have thousands of tracks in libraries and I've never written any tracks specifically for libraries...


----------



## Stephen Rees

@ Riffwraith - I know I said a 'significant proportion' of $50k, but it isn't THAT much 

@Soundhound - I always encourage anyone that wants to try library music to have a go. It can be tremendously creatively satisfying and you can make a living at it. My only advice is just try and work with the very best. Good luck to you 

EDIT: And just to add, no I don't think it is possible to live off 16 tracks alone. But 100 good tracks with great libraries? Yes absolutely - you can earn $50k plus a year with that, although it probably depends what genres you write in. I'm an orchestral (non trailer music) writer.


----------



## Jaap

At the moment I am focussing on purely writing production music and as Stephen is pointing out, it is is extremely satisfying.

Due to very unfortunate happenings in my life I was out of business for a while and now I am picking things up again with writing production music and beside having not to deal with deadlines I feel actually much more creative since I can write whatever I want 

I am not able to make a full stable living from it, but actually I am very pleased with the results to be honest.

A few tips from my side based on working now a small year on purely production music:

- write for different types of libraries. You have a few microstock libraries which can earn you some nice money with pure sync fee, but no back-end. I often use old project stuff which I couldn't use at that time or write some easy excersises in another style and upload them. I have in total around 80 of this kind of easy going, not too high quality stuff going around in the lower library segment and I am making around 600 till 1000 dollar a month from them
The nice thing is that they often pay monthly which can give you monthly some extra stuff. 

- I write more higher quality music for the medium segment of the music libraries. These are libraries which review your music, often work with you on a exclusive base without paying you upfront money.
I use some money I earn from the first libraries I mention to make the tracks more higher in quality by recording some live instruments etc. Also for those tracks I create the typical stinger, 15,30 and 60 sec parts and a loop.
So far a few pieces have sold and been used in a variety of local and national tv productions from all around. They should generate some backend money.

- I am trying now also to get my foot in the door by some high end libraries like extreme, dewolve etc and I am focussing the last 3 months on producing a few thematic cd's with high quality music and I am planning to have them finished in a few months and again I use some of the money from the first libraries.

A small summary is: don't focus on one thing or on only joining the high end ones. If you want to be serious about this and make overall good money, know that you can also make money from the royalty free libraries. People have a shitload of opinions about them, but in my eyes they are a completey different market with a different set of customers.
As far as I have seen and know, music editors from big companies shop at their favorite shops and they are not interested in low end libraries where they can buy stuff for 30 dollar. 
However there is a very big market with small companies and individuals who need some music for a small movie or presentation or business event and they just don't have the bigger money, but they want some nice music as well. They don't look for the highest produced quality music, but for some good catchy, nice sounding music which is doing fine on some speakers and don't have to perform in a 11.1 movie theatre.

Just my 2 cents


----------



## AC986

RiffWraith @ Tue Apr 08 said:


> and a track of yours gets chosen as the main title theme for a show on network TV that airs 5 nights/wk, then goes into syndication. But how often does that happen?
> 
> Cheers.



That's definitely the dream Jeffrey.  

One track a week? Wowie Zowie! To me and I joke not, that's impressive. I would love to do a track a week and that's definitely a goal of mine. 

Also, album based music based on a genre/style is probably the way to go, so editors can just go in on the subject/keywording etc and not have to faff around.

With Steve on the type and quality of a track too. I would be embarrassed to say how many tracks I have out there at the moment. It's a ridiculously low number but getting a track to play over on a repeat basis is a satisfying experience. Not much money, but that's down to me and doing more work.

Musicians are quite lucky in some ways today, myself included, because back when I was a session player in the late 60s and 70s, if you wanted to get into library tracks, everything had to be recorded live in a studio and could be a bit more complicated, and arguably for some I hasten to add, a lot simpler. No digital anything. No computers either. No mobile phones. No internet. Nothing like today.

It's great to see musicians wanting to do this type of work. I agree with Steve wholeheartedly. There is plenty of work around the world's media for anyone that not totally hopeless. The United States alone could probably support every musician in the world, and when you think now how so many other countries are opening up the possibilities are endless and we should definitely be supportive.


----------



## Peter M.

I got accepted by AudioSparx and I'm looking for some more beginner friendly libraries that I can apply to. But I'd like them to have some quality control, audiosparx requested to hear 3 of my tracks before accepting me. Anyone know some good ones?


----------



## Soundhound

Took a listen to Extrememusic and that seems more like it. I would love to find more libraries on that level. 

My thought is I'm going to get a bunch of tracks together and pitch them to the better libraries. Maybe nothing will get accepted, in which I case I'll try writing more. And the stuff that doesn't get accepted after a while I'll try to pitch those to the lesser cost libraries. 

If nothing happens, nothing happens. I write all the time anyway, so what the hell. 

Thank you everyone for the discussion, it's been a real eye opener. I've only been exploring VI Control really recently and I gotta say it's a fantastic resource - I really appreciate the hard won knowledge people here are so very generous with. Thank you!

Ok, back to working these tracks. 

Can anyone recommend other libraries of similar quality level to Extrememusic? 

Cheers!




Stephen Rees @ Tue Apr 08 said:


> If the quality of the music you've heard at a library is bad, the chances are the library is not great.
> 
> I really don't think it is that hard to tell a good library from a bad. Here's a good one….
> 
> https://www.extrememusic.com
> 
> I have 16 tracks with this library. I haven't written for them for a number of years. Those 16 tracks consistently year on year get me a significant proportion of that $50k total. Not a thousand tracks. Not 500 tracks. But 16 tracks. They are rarely placed in trailers. None of them are high profile theme tunes.
> 
> I would say write great tracks and only pitch them to the very best libraries. If you fail in your pitches, write better ones and only pitch them to the best libraries. Repeat until you are successful.
> 
> Who wants to write 2-3000 tracks every 2 or 3 years? That is 2 to 3 tracks per day. Every day. They aren't going to be your best work at that speed. How would that be satisfying?
> 
> I write on average a track a week. Sometimes less. Interesting briefs. Broad deadlines. It just doesn't have to be the 'crank out zillions of tracks for pennies and you might just scrape a living' approach. If I had to do that I'd just do something else for a living. I'd be utterly miserable.
> 
> Fortunately I don't have to do that. And neither do you Soundhound  Seriously, don't be put off. You can do it, you can be paid well for it, and you can enjoy it. You can have it all.


----------



## Jaap

Peter M. @ Tue Apr 08 said:


> I got accepted by AudioSparx and I'm looking for some more beginner friendly libraries that I can apply to. But I'd like them to have some quality control, audiosparx requested to hear 3 of my tracks before accepting me. Anyone know some good ones?



http://jinglepunks.com/ = a very good one, great placements and good backend income. Takes however lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng time before they approve/reject (can take up easily 2 months, but be patient and it's worth it)

https://www.tunefruit.com - relative new, but good player in the market. Also takes some weeks before songs are accepted, but also worth it.

http://www.rhapsideemusic.co.za/ - a very new library, but picky on what they accept and I have a good feeling with them. Nice people to work with, sales are low since they are new, but this can give you a good fresh "from the beginning" start

http://www.pond5.com/ - not much quality control (they review, but dunno what their criteria is since they seem to accept everything), however good sales and good placements.
You can price you own tracks. Just dont let the freaking low prices fool you from others. I have all my tracks priced in the higher range and they actually starting to sell more since I priced them seriously (I experimented a bit with the pricing)


----------



## Jaap

Soundhound @ Tue Apr 08 said:


> Took a listen to Extrememusic and that seems more like it. I would love to find more libraries on that level.
> 
> My thought is I'm going to get a bunch of tracks together and pitch them to the better libraries. Maybe nothing will get accepted, in which I case I'll try writing more. And the stuff that doesn't get accepted after a while I'll try to pitch those to the lesser cost libraries.
> 
> If nothing happens, nothing happens. I write all the time anyway, so what the hell.
> 
> Thank you everyone for the discussion, it's been a real eye opener. I've only been exploring VI Control really recently and I gotta say it's a fantastic resource - I really appreciate the hard won knowledge people here are so very generous with. Thank you!
> 
> Ok, back to working these tracks.
> 
> Can anyone recommend other libraries of similar quality level to Extrememusic?
> 
> Cheers!



Here are a few:

http://www.imagempm.com (was Boosey and Hawkes)
http://www.gothic-storm.com
http://www.warnerchappellpm.com
http://www.immediatemusic.com/
http://www.killertracks.com/
http://www.kpm.co.uk/


----------



## DocMidi657

Stupid question, sorry,

Can someone tell me when you submit a song to a library can that song only be on that site or can you submit that same song to other libraries as well? 

How does that work?

Thanks,
Dave


----------



## Jaap

DocMidi657 @ Wed Apr 09 said:


> Stupid question, sorry,
> 
> Can someone tell me when you submit a song to a library can that song only be on that site or can you submit that same song to other libraries as well?
> 
> How does that work?
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave



If a library is non exclusive (like the libraries in my second last post) you submit the song to other (non-exclusive) libraries. If a library is however working on an exclusive base (like most libraries I mentioned in my last post), you can only submit them to that one.


----------



## DocMidi657

Thanks so much, and my last stupid question for the day 

How do know or how can you tell if a library is exclusive or non exclusive? Is that on their site or do they communicate that to you when you are beginning a relationship with them like after they hear your initial music?

Thank you again,
Dave


----------



## Daryl

DocMidi657 @ Wed Apr 09 said:


> Thanks so much, and my last stupid question for the day
> 
> How do know or how can you tell if a library is exclusive or non exclusive? Is that on their site or do they communicate that to you when you are beginning a relationship with them like after they hear your initial music?
> 
> Thank you again,
> Dave


It's in the contract, and if a library company is a Publisher, chances are that the contract will be exclusive. However, AFAIK the exclusive libraries don't really accept music from random strangers. Their albums are carefully briefed and targeted, so unless you already have a track record or a personal introduction, it is unlikely that you will get invited to submit, unless you are in one of the above categories. However, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't try.

D


----------



## Soundhound

Thanks! I'll look into them straight away. 


[/quote]

Here are a few:

http://www.imagempm.com (was Boosey and Hawkes)
http://www.gothic-storm.com
http://www.warnerchappellpm.com
http://www.immediatemusic.com/
http://www.killertracks.com/
http://www.kpm.co.uk/[/quote]


----------



## Stephen Rees

Daryl @ Tue Apr 08 said:


> However, AFAIK the exclusive libraries don't really accept music from random strangers. Their albums are carefully briefed and targeted, so unless you already have a track record or a personal introduction, it is unlikely that you will get invited to submit, unless you are in one of the above categories. However, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't try.



It is definately worth trying. I'm just finishing an album for one of the best libraries there is. I've never worked with them before and have no personal connection to them whatsoever. 6 months ago I visited their website. They invited demo submissions from composers and had instructions on how to do so. I followed those instructions exactly. 2 months later I got a phone call inviting me to do an album for them.

That client has been patient, knowledgable, open minded, encouraging, and the brief they gave me was to write exactly the kind of music I love writing.

I am not saying any of the things I have on this thread because I think I am in any way exceptional. Far from it - I'm just a composer trying to do the best I can with the limited skills I have. I'm saying it to encourage people out there who want to make music for a living to have a go.


----------



## doctornine

Jaap @ Tue Apr 08 said:


> DocMidi657 @ Wed Apr 09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid question, sorry,
> 
> Can someone tell me when you submit a song to a library can that song only be on that site or can you submit that same song to other libraries as well?
> 
> How does that work?
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a library is non exclusive (like the libraries in my second last post) you submit the song to other (non-exclusive) libraries. If a library is however working on an exclusive base (like most libraries I mentioned in my last post), you can only submit them to that one.
Click to expand...


And a quick trawl around a few of these will reveal that they are populated largely by the same group of writers…

So ask yourself this - whats the point ? By the bargain basement nature of these libraries, isn't the end user just going to look for the cheapest option ???

~o)


----------



## Jaap

doctornine @ Wed Apr 09 said:


> Jaap @ Tue Apr 08 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DocMidi657 @ Wed Apr 09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid question, sorry,
> 
> Can someone tell me when you submit a song to a library can that song only be on that site or can you submit that same song to other libraries as well?
> 
> How does that work?
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a library is non exclusive (like the libraries in my second last post) you submit the song to other (non-exclusive) libraries. If a library is however working on an exclusive base (like most libraries I mentioned in my last post), you can only submit them to that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And a quick trawl around a few of these will reveal that they are populated largely by the same group of writers…
> 
> So ask yourself this - whats the point ? By the bargain basement nature of these libraries, isn't the end user just going to look for the cheapest option ???
> 
> ~o)
Click to expand...


Every library has it's own set of customers and the ones I posted are not the bargain ones. Jingle Punks is a very serious competitor in the market and as I posted earlier, there is a big market and that is not only about Hollywood A stuff. Small companies, small projects also are looking for music and such.
It is all about what amount of work you put into it. I am not gonna put full live recordings on sites where my music is bought for the smaller projects and amounts of money. It is adjusting to the different markets.


----------



## Ed

RiffWraith @ Tue Apr 08 said:


> Stephen Rees @ Tue Apr 08 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A thousand tracks plus to make $50k dollars a year (and I'm assuming we are including broadcast royalties here too)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, we are talking ONLY broadcast royalties, and we are NOT talking trailers. If you start throwing in trailers and sync fees, etc., then the game changes completely. If you are talking simply submitting your tracks to a few libs, and if you are looking at only perf. royalties... then the 2-3 yrs/few thousand tracks to get to 50k scenario is accurate. Unless of course, you get really lucky, and a track of yours gets chosen as the main title theme for a show on network TV that airs 5 nights/wk, then goes into syndication. But how often does that happen?
> 
> Cheers.
Click to expand...


I must have made over $60k (dollars to make it easier) in the last 4 years from broadcast royalties (not sync fees) with only about 5-6 tracks. Does that mean I'm doing amazingly well?


----------



## doctornine

60k on 6 tracks in 4 years ?

I would say thats doing pretty well.

o-[][]-o


----------



## Stephen Rees

doctornine @ Wed Apr 09 said:


> 60k on 6 tracks in 4 years ?
> 
> I would say thats doing pretty well.
> 
> o-[][]-o



I'd agree that is definitely on the high end. Well done Ed! I'm guessing those tracks are well written, well produced, well structured for library usage and published by an excellent library.

That's another example of what writing your best for one of the best libraries can do.


----------



## RiffWraith

Ed @ Wed Apr 09 said:


> I must have made over $60k in the last 4 years from broadcast royalties (not sync fees) with only about 5-6 tracks. Does that mean I'm doing amazingly well?



Yes, you are doing amazingly well. Your situation is not impossible, and not unheard of. But what people new to this should understand, is that having ONE track generate $3k per year in perf. royalties alone is not at all the norm. Because then, they are going to start to think, "hey - I will write 100 tracks over the next 3 mos., and sit back while I collect $300,000k per year for the next several years!" Umm, no.

Ed - how many pages is your PRS statement usually?


----------



## Stephen Rees

RiffWraith @ Wed Apr 09 said:


> "I will write 100 tracks over the next 3 mos., and sit back while I collect $300,000k per year for the next several years!" Umm, no.



Completely agree with you there. I don't think anyone is saying that. It would probably take more than 3 years just to place 100 tracks with the best libraries (it might even take double that length of time) and then at least a couple of years after the tracks are released before the royalty levels they earn become significant. Ed is doing phenomenally well with his 6 tracks.

We're just saying it needn't take several thousand tracks to make a living at it. I doubt I'll even write 1,000 tracks in my whole life.

I'm tremendously enthusiastic about the library music biz as you might be able to tell  It has enabled me to make a living writing the kind of music I love for clients who are enjoyable to work with. Creatively satisfying and financially rewarding. I like to encourage fellow composers who are thinking of taking the plunge to have a go. I do recognise mine is just one experience of many though and others may have very different experiences and opinions, so I shall gracefully withdraw from this thread now and leave the floor open to others to share their views. I'll continue to read with great interest though.

Best of luck to you Soundhound!


----------



## Ed

RiffWraith @ Wed Apr 09 said:


> Ed - how many pages is your PRS statement usually?



Not that many really. 3 or 4? Thing is if you get a lot from one thing that only takes up one line.

It wasn't even over the past 4 (-5) years of course, it started off small, and then has gotten more and more each year and as I add more tracks to it. Although annoyingly from my point of view some tracks hardly get used or get no use at all, while 1 or 2 generate something like 60-80% of the revenue. (from memory). Sometimes it seems kind of inexplicable why they like certain tracks so much and some other ones hardly at all by comparison. 

Yes it is about the quality of your tracks but at the end of the day all we're looking at is figures on a spreadsheet.If your music is the kind of music that gets used all over the place on big channels, even if its tiny little promos only lasting 20 or so seconds, you can make a lot of good money. The point is that they must 1. have good distribution. 2. They must be the kind of music that gets a lot of play. Music for promos gets used a lot, and there seems to be an insatiable demand for it still. Even if it doesn't get played on hollywood blockbusters, and only on Masterchef or some German reality TV shows, or some promos you never saw or knew about, thats the real unseen money. Its not as sexy as centre stage in a new Avengers trailer, but the rewards are still very real.

Someone can make big money so long as they are writing for a big well used library in a genre that gets lot of play. If you want to write some abstract thing, or something that sounds "filmic", that may be much harder. We all might think its better music, and maybe some nice documentary will use it once, but if a chase trailer track is really usable and cool and it gets used all over promos then it doesn't matter, the trailer track will make more money. It got more play, so too bad. You have to put your business hat on when you think library and if you want to really try and make it big.


----------



## rgames

I always chime in with this comment: quality is not a factor in making money with music libraries. There are three factors:

1. Networking
2. Quantity
3. Luck

You can overcome deficiencies in any one with more emphasis on the others.

There are people who make good money writing marginal-quality tracks that sell thousands of times. And there are folks who make good money writing masterpieces that sell once. You can make good money either way. You can also make near-zero money with very high quality music if you don't network, don't write a decent number of tracks, or don't get lucky.

I've had countless "knowledgeable" library music people predict which of my tracks will make money and which won't. There's absolutely no consensus or trend in those opinions. Furthermore, and more to the point, there's no relationship between those opinions and what actually makes money.

It's a crapshoot. Advice on music libraries is basically pointless (including mine!). Just get in the game and start figuring it out.

rgames


----------



## AC986

rgames @ Wed Apr 09 said:


> I've had countless "knowledgeable" library music people predict which of my tracks will make money and which won't.
> rgames



Were they right?


----------



## rgames

adriancook @ Thu Apr 10 said:


> rgames @ Wed Apr 09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've had countless "knowledgeable" library music people predict which of my tracks will make money and which won't.
> rgames
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were they right?
Click to expand...

See the following sentences in that post...

In short, no! Not even close. It's completely random. The only factors that correlate to success are networking, quantity, and luck. Quality is too abstract and subjective to be a factor.

Everything sells given enough networking, quantity, and luck.

rgames


----------



## Daryl

rgames @ Thu Apr 10 said:


> I always chime in with this comment: quality is not a factor in making money with music libraries. There are three factors:
> 
> 1. Networking
> 2. Quantity
> 3. Luck


I know that you like to make that statement, but frankly it's very insulting to the people who make a living doing this sort of thing.

D


----------



## Guy Rowland

Daryl @ Fri Apr 11 said:


> rgames @ Thu Apr 10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always chime in with this comment: quality is not a factor in making money with music libraries. There are three factors:
> 
> 1. Networking
> 2. Quantity
> 3. Luck
> 
> 
> 
> I know that you like to make that statement, but frankly it's very insulting to the people who make a living doing this sort of thing.
> 
> D
Click to expand...


Agreed - its just silly to say that quality literally has nothing to do with it. Of course its more complex than JUST quality, but it's hardly brilliant insight to point out that if if a track is crap it won't get used much.

Incidentally, as someone who actually uses quite a bit of production music in My Other Job, the name and tags associated with the tracks are hugely important, as is the library itself of course. You'll only get used if you get found on searches. I'm a big fan of giving tracks really obvious names - France In Spring would be an unimaginative but savvy title of a bright French ditty cos it would stand a good chance of coming up in searches a lot, regardless of how good the programmers of the search engine are and how well the library tagged you. The word FRANCE is right there in the title. Tense Mystery In France is a stunning title.

While trailer houses may have specific libraries and albums they turn to often, don't forget as Ed said that the market outside trailers is mind-bogglingly vast and truly global. I guess pretty much everyone uses a web-based search engine of some kind now, so naming and tagging is all important. THEN it has to sound good...

And incidentally, congrats to Ed.


----------



## AC986

rgames @ Thu Apr 10 said:


> adriancook @ Thu Apr 10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rgames @ Wed Apr 09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've had countless "knowledgeable" library music people predict which of my tracks will make money and which won't.
> rgames
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were they right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See the following sentences in that post...
> 
> In short, no! Not even close. It's completely random. The only factors that correlate to success are networking, quantity, and luck. Quality is too abstract and subjective to be a factor.
> 
> Everything sells given enough networking, quantity, and luck.
> 
> rgames
Click to expand...


I did see that following sentence and actually, unlike my two fellow countrymen, I don't feel insulted. :lol: 

I agree on one point. Quality is subjective and based on the listener. Who knows what a listener regards as, or even understands, as quality. You could say the same thing about ourselves tbh.

However, random? networking? Not sure about that. Maybe in the USA. The music libraries of course have to do that but they surely can't be peddling crap and hope to stay in business.

Anyway, interesting discussion.


----------



## Stephen Rees

I think Guy's point regarding titles is really important. I sometimes spend days coming up with a title for a track - something that will make someone want to hear it, and also let them know just from the title the kind of thing they are going to hear.

Sometimes libraries don't use your own titles and title them themselves of course. This can be very good (Extreme retitled one of my tracks 'Tinker Spell' which has done really well for me and is much better than my original title). Sometimes it can be very bad. I had a track with a library who shall remain nameless that was quite good. The title I chose was quite good. They renamed it. Guess what they called it. Go on..........guess. Give up? 'Annoying Bells'. I kid you not. Needless to say it isn't one of my top performers 

Oh and if you ever need annoying bells Guy don't listen to 'Annoying Bells' by the way. There are no bells in it for a start....


----------



## MichaelL

Daryl @ Fri Apr 11 said:


> rgames @ Thu Apr 10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always chime in with this comment: quality is not a factor in making money with music libraries. There are three factors:
> 
> 1. Networking
> 2. Quantity
> 3. Luck
> 
> 
> 
> I know that you like to make that statement, but frankly it's very insulting to the people who make a living doing this sort of thing.
> 
> D
Click to expand...




The problem with discussions like this about library music, is that you are both right, to a certain degree.
Music, like water, seeks its own level, and it's possible to make money on many levels in this business.

Daryl, your work, and the programs that use your music are 180 degrees polar opposite of something like _Duck Dynasty_. Yet, someone is, in fact, making money cranking out "hick hop" for _Duck Dynasty_ and _Honey Boo Boo._ Then, I suppose one can get into arguments, as to whether there is "quality" hick hop, or if that's an oxymoron. (pun intended)

The point is that when you are dealing with the public what is perceived as quality pretty much fills that spectrum, which is why there are five star restaurants and fast food restaurants. And...within each group there are better and worse. There are many people who eat fast food because they like it, not because they have to.

The same can be said of libraries. The library, or libraries, that you write for, Daryl, are the cream of the crop (in my opinion). I would love to write for KPM. Richard, to my knowledge, markets some of his music through a number of on-line libraries, in which quantity does, perhaps, weigh more heavily with respect to money making, because you are dealing with a different client / audience. Like fast food, the on-line libraries commodify music. You cannot make a lot of money from one hamburger, so you must make it with a billion hamburgers. Even so, there are good and, not so good, on-line libraries.

There are also levels within the world of WFH exclusive libraries. A lower tier WFH / exclusive library that isn't well marketed, or well connected, is nearly useless. You may not make anything beyond your initial fee, which makes on-line libraries attractive in some respects.

If I could modify Richard's formula, I would say that the following determine on which end of the spectrum you are likely to work, and _maybe_ how much money you will make.

1. Networking
2. Luck 
3. Quality

I put them in that order, because you often need the first two, before anyone will find out if you are capable of the third.


_Michael


----------



## Guy Rowland

Stephen Rees @ Fri Apr 11 said:


> Oh and if you ever need annoying bells Guy don't listen to 'Annoying Bells' by the way. There are no bells in it for a start....



Brilliant!

On the broader issue of what makes something good.... its so ridiculously broad. There's absolutely a market for deliberately bad music (in TV, I think the most searched for tag has to be "cheesy" - those wacky daytime folks can't get enough of it). There's a huge market in retro and lo fi sounding stuff. Of all my 3rd party Stylus libraries, the one I turn to more than any of the others - by far - is Vintage Home Keyboard Breaks. That's telling right there.

And of course an exquisite emotional aria performed with a full orchestra and greatest singer in the world pays exactly the same royalties as a one note tension drone. As far as the market is concerned - the only important question is - do they succeed on their own terms? If the Aria was knocked off on a GM midi set, it's not going to get many takers, and - ironically - if the drone is too complex or has the audacity to change notes all on its own it might well get passed over.


----------



## Daryl

@MichaelL. I agree with pretty much everything you say here. There is a huge spectrum within the library industry, and each of us only tends to know our own patch. However, to me it is no accident that even though some albums have quite a few writers, it is always the same writers whose tracks on these albums are used the most.

Obviously my situation is slightly different, as I tend not to do multi composer albums, but with everything being on-line these days, making albums sort of a thing of the past, if people use my tracks, it can't be an accident, particularly when one considers the size of the KPM catalogue. If I am lucky, I have been consistently lucky on every track I've ever written. Or I know my market. You choose. :wink: 

D


----------



## MichaelL

Daryl @ Fri Apr 11 said:


> @MichaelL. I agree with pretty much everything you say here. There is a huge spectrum within the library industry, and each of us only tends to know our own patch. However, to me it is no accident that even though some albums have quite a few writers, it is always the same writers whose tracks on these albums are used the most.
> 
> Obviously my situation is slightly different, as I tend not to do multi composer albums, but with everything being on-line these days, making albums sort of a thing of the past, if people use my tracks, it can't be an accident, particularly when one considers the size of the KPM catalogue. If I am lucky, I have been consistently lucky on every track I've ever written. Or I know my market. You choose. :wink:
> 
> D



I choose the latter. I believe that you know your market very well. My theory, when it comes to libraries, is 1) to know where your music fits and, 2) to try to get it to the libraries who reach your _most likely client_ the best.

If I wanted to get music into a high end documentary, I wouldn't put it into an on-line RF library and just hope for the best. That would be wishful thinking.

Conversely, if I have cues that a small independent "desktop" producer would very likely use in a corporate training video, I might very well go the RF route, because I know those clients don't often shop the "high end." I would wager that they are precisely the type of client who searches RF libraries.

Of course, when you're not generating royalties from PRS or BMI, etc, you need to sell a lot of those RF cues. But, that's where everything really comes down to individual needs and desires.

I think the important thing, whether you're writing orchestral cues for the BBC, or DnB cues for reality TV, is to do what you do to the best of your ability. If your financial and creative needs are met, you're doing well. 


Michael


----------



## rgames

Daryl @ Fri Apr 11 said:


> rgames @ Thu Apr 10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always chime in with this comment: quality is not a factor in making money with music libraries. There are three factors:
> 
> 1. Networking
> 2. Quantity
> 3. Luck
> 
> 
> 
> I know that you like to make that statement, but frankly it's very insulting to the people who make a living doing this sort of thing.
> 
> D
Click to expand...

It's not an insult - there are lots of people who make their entire living writing library music who agree. The fact that you disagree only confirms my point that there's no consensus on quality in the music library business.

There are people who pay $300 for a pair of socks. Consequently, there are people who cater to that market. In the end, they're still just a pair of socks. The people who sell socks for $1.00 a pair are doing just fine. They sell on volume.

The difference is branding and marketing.

If you want in on the $300 market, you network accordingly. If you want in on the $1.00 crowd, you network accordingly. You can make a good living either way. Sock Quality is not (really) a quantifiable factor - you can't distinguish one pair of socks from another on the basis of quality. You can, however, distinguish on the basis of brand image.

rgames


----------



## rgames

Daryl @ Fri Apr 11 said:


> If I am lucky, I have been consistently lucky on every track I've ever written. Or I know my market. You choose. :wink


Here's another point: what do you mean by lucky? That you make money?

Well, Beethoven never made much money. Did he write low-quality music?

Furthermore, would you say that everything that makes money is quality? I hope not...

See where I'm coming from? There's no relationship between quality and making money. You might have a personal preference for a particular style of music but it's preference - there's no way to quantify the "quality" of that music. As a result, there's no consensus on what "quality" means in the music business.

There is consensus, however, that you can make money in many different ways at many different price points with many different genres and many different markets.

Wal-Mart is not known for high quality, is it? But boy do they make money. So if you want to relate quality to revenues, then Wal-Mart is the gold standard. Hopefully you'll agree that's not the case...!

rgames


----------



## Jaap

I think it is more about playing the different markets and producing for that specific market the highest quality.
If you aim for a market which is focussing on happy clappy corporate music it may not seem that the music has a "high standard", but to make it work for that market, within that segment you have a far better chance if it is of high quality. Ok, it is totally different then for example the standard of Two Steps From Hell, but nonetheless it requires a certain amount of skill to produce good functional and quality music in that genre.

The same goes for the other segments of production music world. Within every segment a composer should aim for the highest quality possible to make it work and then the luck factor will be reduced. Of course there is still a tiny bit of luck to it, but if a piece stands out in musicality and quality in production it has a far better chance to be picked up when it is of average quality.

Just my opinion.


----------



## Musicologo

I think the term "quality" here is a misconception. I think we are simply talking about "standards of production" and "expectations regarding sound".

If I'm working for a market that sells those happy clappy corporate tracks, a track that a sound and a production level meeting the standards of what is already selling in the market will sell more. I can't really say it has "more quality", but just it meets those standards better. It's a relative concept. 

Inside each market segment there is a "standard of sound expectation" and one should try to meet or exceed that expectation.


----------



## TSU

rgames, it is very upsets when someone thinks in this way about quality in music...
Sorry, but you are mistaken here.


----------



## RiffWraith

rgames @ Sat Apr 12 said:


> There's no relationship between quality and making money.



If there was, would Kesha be making so much money? What about Nicki Minaj? :D


----------



## rgames

TSU @ Fri Apr 11 said:


> rgames, it is very upsets when someone thinks in this way about quality in music...


I know it upsets people. But it's true. All you have to do is turn on your TV to prove it to yourself.

You guys are lucky to have me around - I don't need the money I make from my music, so I have no agenda and you can count on me for honest assessments.

You can thank me later 

rgames


----------



## TSU

rgames @ 4.12.2014 said:


> TSU @ Fri Apr 11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> rgames, it is very upsets when someone thinks in this way about quality in music...
> 
> 
> 
> I know it upsets people. But it's true. All you have to do is turn on your TV to prove it to yourself.
> 
> You guys are lucky to have me around - I don't need the money I make from my music, so I have no agenda and you can count on me for honest assessments.
> 
> You can thank me later
> 
> rgames
Click to expand...


Then you must say that you are talking about low budget segment of music and production. Or show me high quality documentary film or ad or video game with low-quality music.


----------



## TSU

Also my TV is not agree too.
News channels - not a low quality music.
Documentary movies - too...
Ads - as well not low quality.
TV shows and different series too...
(In most cases of course and without consideration of cheap production)

Honestly I can't understand what are you talking about. If making low quality music for low quality productions are satisfying you... then... no more questions. But in this case you must stop to make such statements that touches the industry overall with no dividing on different production quality levels.

And I can't understand how you can just "chime in" with your statements after those people who also have success in production music and saying that quality is very important. You just came and said - "no, you are wrong - quality is not important at all."

And why you are accented on quality of production music?
Do you see any different quality measure for bespoke music?

And I already can thank you... for my blowed mind. I really tried to understand. Unsuccessfully. Sorry.


----------



## rgames

TSU @ Fri Apr 11 said:


> Do you see any different quality measure for bespoke music?


No.

My comments apply to music in general - film, TV, library, pop, classical, whatever.

Quality is subjective in music and there's no correlation between anybody's definition of quality and what makes money.

In fact, it's even broader than music: any artform is devoid of any meaningful relationship between quality and revenues.

As I said much earlier in the thread: there are people who write great music and make no money. And there are people who write great music and make lots of money. And there are people who write crap and make no money. And there are people who write crap and make lots of money. There's no correlation between any definition of quality (you choose which one you want) and how much revenue it generates.

There are people who say their music is quality because it make a lot of money. Likewise, there are people who say their music is quality because it doesn't make a lot of money. They're both pointless circular arguments. Quality, however you want to define it, is not related to making money in the music business.

rgames


----------



## TSU

Looks like you mostly talk about free musical self-expression. Indeed, someone created a melody/groove/song and it became popular. And nobody know why. And there is indeed no any system.

But we talking about production music. (Library or bespoke)
This music is created with purpose - to work well in the certain circumstances.


----------



## doctornine

rgames @ Sat Apr 12 said:


> TSU @ Fri Apr 11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> rgames, it is very upsets when someone thinks in this way about quality in music...
> 
> 
> 
> I know it upsets people. But it's true. All you have to do is turn on your TV to prove it to yourself.
> 
> You guys are lucky to have me around - I don't need the money I make from my music, so I have no agenda and you can count on me for honest assessments.
> 
> You can thank me later
> 
> rgames
Click to expand...


"I don't need the money I Make from my music ???"

I'm actually flabbergasted anyone would come out with a line like that. 

I mean, seriously ????


----------



## Guy Rowland

rgames @ Sat Apr 12 said:


> As I said much earlier in the thread: there are people who write great music and make no money. And there are people who write great music and make lots of money. And there are people who write crap and make no money. And there are people who write crap and make lots of money. There's no correlation between any definition of quality (you choose which one you want) and how much revenue it generates.
> 
> There are people who say their music is quality because it make a lot of money. Likewise, there are people who say their music is quality because it doesn't make a lot of money. They're both pointless circular arguments. Quality, however you want to define it, is not related to making money in the music business.
> 
> rgames



This is very silly indeed.

In your terms, yes its a circular argument. You say "there are people who write crap and make lots of money". Perhaps its time to name names - give us an example of some crap music that is making money. I suspect you'll find that not all will say it is, in fact, crap. A point you would say you've made, say "QED" and retire to the bar.

Not so fast.

I think you're framing the debate in a way that renders it meaningless to make an invalid point. The point is, as I said already, "does it succeed on its own terms?" Some will say all dubstep is crap, but that's a non-argument. If you've written a dubstep track, is it good _in those terms_? If so, as a library track, you've got a better chance of being used than a nasty knock-off by someone who doesn't understand the genre (a phenomenon very common when classically trained composers reach outside their own comfort zone). Then again, maybe a track is MEANT to sound crap, in which case does it do so humorously?

It makes absolutely no sense to argue that the actual content is immaterial, as if you could just put linear timecode on a 3 minute wav and expect to get airplay. It matters greatly - in tandem with many other factors. If I didn't know better, I'd think you were arguing here just to be difficult... :wink:


----------



## Daryl

doctornine @ Sat Apr 12 said:


> rgames @ Sat Apr 12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TSU @ Fri Apr 11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> rgames, it is very upsets when someone thinks in this way about quality in music...
> 
> 
> 
> I know it upsets people. But it's true. All you have to do is turn on your TV to prove it to yourself.
> 
> You guys are lucky to have me around - I don't need the money I make from my music, so I have no agenda and you can count on me for honest assessments.
> 
> You can thank me later
> 
> rgames
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I don't need the money I Make from my music ???"
> 
> I'm actually flabbergasted anyone would come out with a line like that.
> 
> I mean, seriously ????
Click to expand...

Richard is an amateur. He has a day job. So he doesn't need to earn money from music.

D


----------



## Stephen Rees

For some people library music is just an additional income to their day job (which could be music related or not) but for others writing library music IS their day job.

Professional library music composers do need to earn enough money to live on exclusively from their library work, and so make different choices to those that don't I would say.


----------



## AC986

rgames @ Fri Apr 11 said:


> You guys are lucky to have me around
> 
> rgames



Yes.

I for one, feel extremely fortunate. 

PS. Can you please send me some of your reject socks? I'm desperate.


----------



## AC986

Daryl @ Sat Apr 12 said:


> Richard is an amateur. He has a day job. So he doesn't need to earn money from music.
> 
> D



My music is of such high quality that I'm beginning to feel like an amateur myself.

This is why I need other people's socks.


----------



## doctornine

Stephen Rees @ Sat Apr 12 said:


> For some people library music is just an additional income to their day job (which could be music related or not) but for others writing library music IS their day job.
> 
> Professional library music composers do need to earn enough money to live on exclusively from their library work, and so make different choices to those that don't I would say.



Absolutely.


----------



## Daryl

adriancook @ Sat Apr 12 said:


> Daryl @ Sat Apr 12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Richard is an amateur. He has a day job. So he doesn't need to earn money from music.
> 
> D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My music is of such high quality that I'm beginning to feel like an amateur myself.
> 
> This is why I need other people's socks.
Click to expand...

People always tell me to put a sock in it... Or was it on it?

D


----------



## Stephen Rees

adriancook @ Sat Apr 12 said:


> Daryl @ Sat Apr 12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Richard is an amateur. He has a day job. So he doesn't need to earn money from music.
> 
> D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My music is of such high quality that I'm beginning to feel like an amateur myself.
> 
> This is why I need other people's socks.
Click to expand...


I have some out of date tins of Baxter's Carrot and Coriander soup if you are interested?


----------



## AC986

I'll take anything!

Edit: I love Baxters soup. Love it! My favourite is their French Onion.

Anyway, lets not get into Baxters soups otherwise Richard will say something. :oops: >8o


----------



## Stephen Rees

The quality of the soup is irrelevant, its the quantity of soup that counts; networking with soup merchants; and also luck (finding yourself sitting next to a purveyor of quality soups on the train to Aldershot for example).

EDIT: I'm glad I decided to gracefully withdraw from this thread earlier. Otherwise I might have posted something silly. I am supposed to be doing 30s edits and stings at the moment, and I find after doing a few dozen of them my brain starts to do funny things. It is like playing Tetris, only with musical shapes that never seem to want to fit......


----------



## AC986

I did a track based on Michael Nyman's style and finished up 'inviting' one of the bosses of my music library if he would like to go halves and do a co-write. He did and I'm now supposed to move on to the next track and my brain has started to wilt. :lol:


----------



## doctornine

adriancook @ Sat Apr 12 said:


> I'll take anything!
> 
> Edit: I love Baxters soup. Love it! My favourite is their French Onion.
> 
> Anyway, lets not get into Baxters soups otherwise Richard will say something. :oops: >8o



Gentlemen, I fear you have made my day complete.

Without even breaking out the can-opener.

o-[][]-o


----------



## rgames

Here's the bottom line, guys:

It's irresponsible to tell someone that quality is the way to make money in the music business. People don't make money because of quality - they make money because they build a network or get lucky or write a lot of music until something sticks.

Advising any other course of action is bad advice. Sure, it feeds the egos of the people who think making money is a function of quality (and since they make money, their music is quality, QED). But there's no factual basis for that statement - it's driven entirely by ego.

According to Tunesat, my music is playing somewhere pretty much every day. And I make money from it. I'm not kidding myself, however, that it's because it's all quality stuff. Some is. Some definitely is not.

When I first started in the library world, I refrained from submitting a lot of stuff that I thought was not "quality". Along the way, folks kept asking me for more music, but I don't write enough to keep up, so I started submitting the stuff that I thought was no good. Guess what - it still sells. It sells both as much and as little as anything that I or anyone else thought would sell. Nobody can predict what sells. They can kind-of predict what sells within their networks, but not in general across the vast sea of potential uses for any given piece of music.

If it feeds your egos to think that you make money because you write quality music, then that's fine. Good on you. However, it's irresponsible to recommend quality as a focus to someone asking about the music business.

Much better to tell the truth and help out your fellow composers.

Don't fabricate a utopia for the sake of feeding your own egos.

rgames


----------



## AC986

Egos? No, definitely not. Can't believe any of that for one minute.

I certainly don't have enough tracks or earn enough money for that kind of self congratulatory stuff. When I hear one my tracks on tv it's like a minor miracle to me and I've forgotten about it in 5 minutes.

I don't think either, you can ever compare your music to anything else. If you let your ego get involved in comparisons or think you're somehow better than everything else, you're in trouble I think.

Confidence and a certain amount of ability is important of course.


----------



## TSU

rgames,

One more time - you are talking about low budget production level only.
There is no low quality music in high quality film, tv or games (or any other) production.
Or show examples of opposite.
Ego? Just ridiculous. You are saying that anybody who make high quality music doing it just to make his ego happy? Ok. I am quit this useless conversation... ~o)


----------



## Oliver_Codd

Wow Rgames, I'm glad you told me this useful information. Now I only have to spend a day on each track. At that rate I should make at least ten times as much money this year! I'm sure my publisher will be thrilled that I'm sending over a bunch of crap every day. After all, it's quantity that matters right?


----------



## Guy Rowland

Richard - it really does look like you actually believe this stuff. But you continue to not address the huge problems in your argument.

First of all, you're doing the straw man thing. Nobody here is saying that quality is all you need to succeed. Second, its a logical fallacy to start from noticing that some of your tracks that you think are not as good quality as others are doing well, and then deducing that quality has no bearing whatsoever on how much something is used. Indeed, you keep saying how irrelevant quality is, and yet use it as the only terribly vague yardstick by which to judge any musical skill or worth. You obviously have your own criteria for judging your own work - you can judge which is good and which is bad quality and you should know, right? Well, perhaps not, but onto that in a moment.

I presume from your words that you would say that the statement "if you write for a specific purpose or genre, do it well" is bad advice. Doesn't enter into it right? It's all about luck and just throwing enough shit out there. So, the logical conclusion from this is that people shouldn't bother to put any effort into the music whatsoever - literally just spend 10 minutes on a GM set per cue, press submit, do it 100 times a month and spend the rest of the time talking yourself up.

Do you in your heart of hearts and brain of brains genuinely think that's good advice? Are you truly happy that someone reading this starting their career might take your words at face value and try that as their strategy?

Just in case you do, let me point out the first glaring problem with this manifest absurdity - your tracks won't get accepted by decent libraries in the first place, and thus your career in production music ends right there.

Here's what I suspect is going on. You've a fine and talented composer. You have high standards. What passes to you as a particularly worthy composition seems to do no better than stuff which is derivative, or uninspired, or not mixed as well as it might be - any one of a number of flaws. Any or all of those things might very well be unimportant to an audience (particularly derivative work - it's a positive asset). So quickly we're back at our old friend "quality", and how you define it. And - yet again - I feel I have to point out what you never address in all these supposedly "tell it like it is" posts, that the only thing that matters is not some arbitrary artistic value placed on a work, is this:

*DOES IT WORK ON ITS OWN TERMS?*

Because that matters very very much.

It's perfectly possible to be very successful and not very original. It's perfectly possible to get good placements without the best musicians or libraries. It's even perfectly possible to get great money from stuff that felt terribly uninspired and by-the-numbers when you wrote it, or something that works for 30 seconds and goes nowhere interesting. However, it's not possible to make a career if you don't care in the slightest as to whether or not any of the stuff you do works on its own terms. You won't get through the door to begin with if you are that cynical regarding your craft. It doesn't all have to be inspired to get placement, but it does have to press enough of the right buttons, and there's most definitely skill and craft involved in that.

Also, again as someone who sometimes uses library music rather than making it, its amazing to me how when filling out cue sheets, I see the same names come up again and again without me realising, even across different libraries sometimes. Some people do seem to have that extra something that I apparently go for. 

So rather than take the wise sage-like maxim "don't bother trying at your craft" from this discussion, I think a much better bit of advice would be this - "understand your market and learn how to give them what they want". And yes, be relentless and hawk your wares and write and write and write. But to simply denigrate any and all skill as baseless ego-stroking is simply terrible advice. And wrong.


----------



## Daryl

Guy, you have hit the nail on the head. Inexperienced people think that good library music is the same as good music. It is not. It can be good music, but that is only one element in the equation. 

D


----------



## rgames

First of all - I never said quality is not a goal and I certainly never said it should be consciously avoided. What we call "quality" is, I think, what defines our musical voices. I don't intentionally write anything that is low quality, but sometimes a track just doesn't work and I can't make it any better. So I give up on it and move on. As I said, I used to just trash those tracks, then I got asked for them and they started to generate as much revenue as those that I thought were "good quality". Furthermore, I see music all over the place that generates revenue that I think is very poor quality. I also see music all over the place that generates revenue that is very good quality. Both of those assessments include my own music as well as that of others.

So, my statement is that musical voice, or "quality", is not related to revenues. I see both low-quality and high-quality music that generates revenue. Of course, my definition of low-quality and high-quality is not consistent with many others', but that's the point: there's no consensus. But however you choose to define it, there's no correlation between quality and revenues.

A focus on voice or quality or whatever you want to call it is an artistic choice. For every voice, there is an application that will generate revenue. If a composer thinks his voice is generating revenue because it is "quality", he must be wrong because there are so many other voices that stand in stark opposition to his definition of quality but that also make money. Hence my statement that those beliefs are driven by ego, not reality.

And, again, my statements are general to the arts - not just library music, not even just music, but all artforms. Quality is subjective and is not related to revenue generation.

As I've also said before, the issue of judging the "quality" of music is one of the reasons composers will never have a union. I've never seen a profession that dislikes itself more than composers do. If we could figure out how to stop worrying about "quality" and, instead, just accept that there are no absolutes but, rather, only likes and dislikes, then we'll be much better off as a community.

rgames


----------



## dinerdog

I normally don't even bother to chime in on these kind's of discussions, BUT, I will make an exception here:

No offense to the hobbyist's or part-time musician's on this forum, but if you are not a full time musician, and by that I mean have done NOTHING but music for at least 10 or more years? Then you simply have no real world experience to speak of on MANY matters discussed. This is not to insult you, but your not, plain and simple (IMHO) a "professional". 

It's never been a 9-5 job (nor will that balance ever happen, no matter how f-ing efficient your think you can be) and never will be. So if you don't eat, breathe and sleep music, your opinion (again, IMHO) is really that of a part-timer who has never risked it all to make a go of it. Not a judgement btw.

If you have any kind of job or regular non-musical income to fall back on, you REALLY shouldn't be advising people who want to give it their all on ANYTHING.

I could go on, but I shouldn't.


----------



## rgames

Charles Ives made most of his money selling insurance. Do you discredit his opinion as a composer?

Francis Ford Coppola makes most of his money from his winery. Do you discredit his opinion as a filmmaker?

And since the Masters is being played right now, Bobby Jones made all of his money as a lawyer. Do you discredit his opinion as a golfer?

I think it's better to just talk about the product and not worry about the titles, especially in the arts.

Regardless, it's OT. The topic is the relationship between quality (whatever that means) and revenues.

rgames


----------



## Jaap

Richard,

I think you make the wrong distinction between artistic music and commercial music. Some kinds of music just generate much less income because it serves a completely different goal. There is hardly any market for the fine arts since there is a very small audience and it is about art itself and not about being part of a product. Heck I have written more then 50 concert pieces including symphonies and operas from which I know they will never generate me any money. Compared to these works my commercial music may seem inferior, but for me they are not. It is a different craft and requires a different set of skills.

Production music is not music that stands on itself. Of course some music can survive just by itself without being part of any film, commercial etc, but the main purpose of producing production music is that it will be a functional part of another product to enhance it.

What is good and what is bad. Somethimes a composition with very minimal setup can be perfect to enhance a commercial or tv scene. Does this make it bad? Not in my opinion, because as composer you should know and therefore craft your music accordingly to certain setups and workarounds.
For example I was watching Masterchef Australia last night and in certain similar scenes throughout every episode there is a part where the contestants are waiting and you hear in the background some music which only seems to consist of some repeating bell like sounds and some light percussion. To produce that 30 seconds of music can be done maybe in a few hours if you think about it. However, it is working really well and some composer must have made a good 30 sec edit of probably a larger piece and understood that somethimes all that is needed to enhance a scene is a musical percussion bed like this.

Not every scene requires a very intelligent well crafted orchestral score, but I know for sure you know this as well. The point I am trying to make is that in order to write and focus on good quality is understanding the different segments of the market, understand how music is used in more then 1000 different situations and craft it accordingly.
You stand a much better chance in the production library world if you know how to craft a good main piece, good 1 minute loops, 15, 30, 45 and 60 seconds cuts, stingers, and logo's out of one piece. 
Of course somethimes a piece which you think it less then others you have written might be picked up and generate some money, but in the long term you will be very likely to generate a steady income if you know how to consistently know how to produce good quality high standard productions with all the edits and cuts. As I said before in a post, this will reduce the luck factor tremendously.


----------



## Stephen Rees

rgames @ Sat Apr 12 said:


> Here's the bottom line, guys



I'm afraid you drew your bottom line in the wrong place.

I was hoping for more soup discussion this morning, but since the thread is back in topic I shall gracefully withdraw for a second time....

And thanks to all my fellow library music composers for proudly coming out, fighting the good fight, and standing up for my chosen profession in this thread. I'm a library music composer and I'm PROUD . To mark my appreciation, I intend to set up a trust fund using the proceeds of 'Annoying Bells' to assist those struggling library composers who believe quality doesn't matter. They need our help.


----------



## Guy Rowland

Jaap - perfectly expressed. Richard has been totally unwilling or unable to engage with that argument to date, preferring to constantly restate how immaterial "quality" is - let's see if your post has any more luck.

It's a tangential point, but I've always wondered how useful the different length versions are. I almost always choose the full version of a track to have the most options to edit it myself to the exact requirements. It's rare in my world to need to need a cue of exactly 30s or 1m for example.


----------



## Stephen Rees

Guy Rowland @ Sun Apr 13 said:


> It's a tangential point, but I've always wondered how useful the different length versions are. I almost always choose the full version of a track to have the most options to edit it myself to the exact requirements. It's rare in my world to need to need a cue of exactly 30s or 1m for example.



I think it is just done out of habit. Most music editors have the skills to do their own edits just the way they want them. The only advantage the writers have is that we have access to the original stems which gives more flexibility in producing elegant edits. But the disadvantage is that we have to guess which edit(s) will be useful, and won't get it right for all people in all cases.


----------



## Daryl

rgames @ Sun Apr 13 said:


> Charles Ives made most of his money selling insurance. Do you discredit his opinion as a composer?


No, but I would discredit his opinion on writing quality library music.

D


----------



## Daryl

Stephen Rees @ Sun Apr 13 said:


> Guy Rowland @ Sun Apr 13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a tangential point, but I've always wondered how useful the different length versions are. I almost always choose the full version of a track to have the most options to edit it myself to the exact requirements. It's rare in my world to need to need a cue of exactly 30s or 1m for example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is just done out of habit. Most music editors have the skills to do their own edits just the way they want them. The only advantage the writers have is that we have access to the original stems which gives more flexibility in producing elegant edits. But the disadvantage is that we have to guess which edit(s) will be useful, and won't get it right for all people in all cases.
Click to expand...

I use them mainly to give the option of alternative starts and ends. In ad world they can be used, but the length of an ad can vary wildly according to broadcast medium and even region, so I also doubt how useful they are in the end.

What is very useful is being able to provide 5 or 6 stems. There are certain clients who won't use music from libraries that don't provide stems.

D


----------



## AC986

Daryl @ Sun Apr 13 said:


> rgames @ Sun Apr 13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Ives made most of his money selling insurance. Do you discredit his opinion as a composer?
> 
> 
> 
> No, but I would discredit his opinion on writing quality library music.
> 
> D
Click to expand...


:lol: :lol: 

Yeah. 

Steve, I have a Waitrose about 10 minutes walking distance from my house, maybe even less. I go in and check the Baxters whenever I can. You get free coffee or tea at Waitrose in the restaurant and it has Wi-fy. When they said there was a new Waitrose coming to our town recently, my wife looked to the sky and said Thank you God!

It is my ernest wish to talk to Richard soon about this matter from Waitrose while studying new Baxters recipes for their forthcoming soup range. _(I made that up about the forthcoming soup range btw, just in case anyone got suddenly exited and checked it out)_


----------



## Guy Rowland

Daryl @ Sun Apr 13 said:


> What is very useful is being able to provide 5 or 6 stems. There are certain clients who won't use music from libraries that don't provide stems.



Huh - I've never seen this offered! You often get different mixes, but I've never seen stems as such. I usually use Play (no, not THAT Play) - the KPM / EMI consortium.


----------



## AC986

rgames @ Sat Apr 12 said:


> And since the Masters is being played right now, Bobby Jones made all of his money as a lawyer. Do you discredit his opinion as a golfer?



That depends on whether you still like to use hickory shafted golf clubs or not.


----------



## AC986

Stephen Rees @ Sun Apr 13 said:


> Guy Rowland @ Sun Apr 13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a tangential point, but I've always wondered how useful the different length versions are. I almost always choose the full version of a track to have the most options to edit it myself to the exact requirements. It's rare in my world to need to need a cue of exactly 30s or 1m for example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is just done out of habit. Most music editors have the skills to do their own edits just the way they want them. The only advantage the writers have is that we have access to the original stems which gives more flexibility in producing elegant edits. But the disadvantage is that we have to guess which edit(s) will be useful, and won't get it right for all people in all cases.
Click to expand...


Mine always get chopped up. I get told time and again to keep the 15,30 and 60 second thing in mind. Anyway, starting a new track today and have been told to keep it in a major key. ~o)


----------



## Daryl

Guy Rowland @ Sun Apr 13 said:


> Daryl @ Sun Apr 13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is very useful is being able to provide 5 or 6 stems. There are certain clients who won't use music from libraries that don't provide stems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh - I've never seen this offered! You often get different mixes, but I've never seen stems as such. I usually use Play (no, not THAT Play) - the KPM / EMI consortium.
Click to expand...

KPM insists that their composers deliver in stems these days, so if you want them, ask for them. :D 

BTW it's KPM/EMI/Sony at the moment.

D


----------



## Guy Rowland

Daryl @ Sun Apr 13 said:


> KPM insists that their composers deliver in stems these days, so if you want them, ask for them.



Well there you go! To be honest, if I'm sourcing something I'll need it from search to timeline in about 3 minutes flat, but maybe its something they'll roll out direct onto Play in time. But good to know its an option.


----------



## MichaelL

Daryl @ Sun Apr 13 said:


> Guy Rowland @ Sun Apr 13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl @ Sun Apr 13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is very useful is being able to provide 5 or 6 stems. There are certain clients who won't use music from libraries that don't provide stems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh - I've never seen this offered! You often get different mixes, but I've never seen stems as such. I usually use Play (no, not THAT Play) - the KPM / EMI consortium.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> KPM insists that their composers deliver in stems these days, so if you want them, ask for them. :D
> 
> BTW it's KPM/EMI/Sony at the moment.
> 
> D
Click to expand...




I've written for seven WFH /exclusive libraries over the years years. :60, :30, and :15 edits have always been part of the package.

Here in the US, those are pretty much standard ad lengths.


----------



## MichaelL

Daryl @ Sat Apr 12 said:


> Guy, you have hit the nail on the head. Inexperienced people think that good library music is the same as good music. It is not. It can be good music, but that is only one element in the equation.
> 
> D




+1


----------



## MichaelL

[quote="Guy Rowland @ Sat Apr 12, 2014 3:33 am
I think you're framing the debate in a way that renders it meaningless to make an invalid point. The point is, as I said already, "does it succeed on its own terms?" Some will say all dubstep is crap, but that's a non-argument. If you've written a dubstep track, is it good _in those terms_? If so, as a library track, you've got a better chance of being used than a nasty knock-off by someone who doesn't understand the genre (a phenomenon very common when classically trained composers reach outside their own comfort zone). :[/quote]


Exactly. I call that middle-aged suburban guy tries to write hip-hop syndrome. 

Oddly enough, though, it does work if the intended audience doesn't understand the genre (any genre) either. This is what happens when you see hip hop "like" or dub step "like" elements creeping into ads. They aren't aimed at true devotees of the genre. It happens all the time. You hear hip hop or dub sounds/beats in an ad, whether its for for cleaning supplies, or pharmaceuticals. Somehow it's supposed to make non-hip products seem more youthful or "cutting edge."

The other example, of course is classical musicians who try to swing (jazz). Many of them totally cannot groove. (maybe that's a stereo type, but I've seen it in action).


----------



## Daryl

MichaelL @ Sun Apr 13 said:


> [quote="Guy Rowland @ Sat Apr 12, 2014 3:33 am]
> I think you're framing the debate in a way that renders it meaningless to make an invalid point. The point is, as I said already, "does it succeed on its own terms?" Some will say all dubstep is crap, but that's a non-argument. If you've written a dubstep track, is it good _in those terms_? If so, as a library track, you've got a better chance of being used than a nasty knock-off by someone who doesn't understand the genre (a phenomenon very common when classically trained composers reach outside their own comfort zone). :




Exactly. I call that middle-aged suburban guy tries to write hip-hop syndrome. 

Oddly enough, though, it does work if the intended audience doesn't understand the genre (any genre) either. This is what happens when you see hip hop "like" or dub step "like" elements creeping into ads. They aren't aimed at true devotees of the genre. It happens all the time. You hear hip hop or dub sounds/beats in an ad, whether its for for cleaning supplies, or pharmaceuticals. Somehow it's supposed to make non-hip products seem more youthful or "cutting edge."

The other example, of course is classical musicians who try to swing (jazz). Many of them totally cannot groove. (maybe that's a stereo type, but I've seen it in action).[/quote][/quote]
The big thing about all of this, is that it all depends on whether or not the end user knows that something is "authentic" or not, and whether or not they care. It also applies to non-classically trained composers who think that they are writing orchestral music, BTW. :wink: 

D


----------



## MichaelL

Daryl @ Sun Apr 13 said:


> [
> The big thing about all of this, is that it all depends on whether or not the end user knows that something is "authentic" or not, and whether or not they care. It also applies to non-classically trained composers who think that they are writing orchestral music, BTW. :wink:
> 
> D



Agree completely Daryl. Then, of course, there's the sub variation of non-classically trained composers who know that they are not actually writing classical music, but don't care because they know that their audience and/or clients doen't know, or care, either.

But I think, that a lot of production music is a "lite" version of the real thing...enough to create a general impression for the average consumer. I try not to be too pretentious about it because I know that I'm not writing concert music.

Oddly enough, I sort of think that's where Richard's cynicism is coming from. Perhaps he feels like he cast his pearls before swine and found that they couldn't tell the difference between pearls and plastic, so why bother? 

This situation, however, is where you really have to understand the particular library's client base. If the library is targeting reality TV, no, your Philip Glass inspired minimalism isn't going to sell. You're writing over the audience (and 99% of the public), outside its comfort zone and aesthetic. That's like trying to sell foie gras at McDonald's.
So, you don't put your music there. It's a waste of time.

Of course, there's every shade of grey in between. At the end of the day, the individual needs to do the best that they can, with their skill set, and be realistic about where they fit in on the food chain.

That last bit, is often the hardest. I've yet to meet a composer who would readily admit their limitations, whether in composition or business.
And thus, the default position is that there is "no rhyme nor reason."

Of course, I do remember a quote from one library composer who said, "no matter how crappy you think a piece of music is, someone will buy it." "Horses for courses," and/or "water seeks its own level" is pretty much the nature of things.

_Michael


----------



## Daryl

MichaelL @ Sun Apr 13 said:


> I've yet to meet a composer who would readily admit their limitations, whether in composition or business.


We should meet. Then you'll never be able to say that again. :wink: 

TBH, I can write any sort of music, provided that I understand why it's good. If I don't understand it (like Dub-Step, for example) I can write something that I think sounds as good/cr*ppy (depending on your view point), but as I can't tell good from bad, I have no idea whether what I'm writing is good or bad.

D


----------



## Musicologo

All this nonsensical discussion can be boiled down to this: rgames says there's no correlation between quality and revenues. And states that as a fact.

Those who do not agree have a simple task: prove that there is a correlation between quality and revenue.

How can one do that? Well, they have to define "quality" and then gather data to prove that if a piece has "more quality" it generates "more revenue", and if a piece has "less quality" it generates "less revenue".

Because there are no standards to define "quality" that are consensual, there is no actual way to make this prove.

Therefore this discussion in nonsensical because there is no way to prove it empirically.


----------



## Stephen Rees

I thought I was in the 'Musicians Helping Musicians' forum, but I seem to have landed in the 'Philosophers Arguing With Philosophers' forum.


----------



## MichaelL

Daryl @ Sun Apr 13 said:


> MichaelL @ Sun Apr 13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to meet a composer who would readily admit their limitations, whether in composition or business.
> 
> 
> 
> We should meet. Then you'll never be able to say that again. :wink:
> 
> TBH, I can write any sort of music, provided that I understand why it's good. If I don't understand it (like Dub-Step, for example) I can write something that I think sounds as good/cr*ppy (depending on your view point), but as I can't tell good from bad, I have no idea whether what I'm writing is good or bad.
> 
> D
Click to expand...


LOL. Then, that makes two of us Daryl! Perhaps that's why we enjoy what we do.


----------



## Jaap

Stephen Rees @ Sun Apr 13 said:


> I thought I was in the 'Musicians Helping Musicians' forum, but I seem to have landed in the 'Philosophers Arguing With Philosophers' forum.



I say, time to go on with the soup! bouillabaisse it is today!


----------



## Guy Rowland

Musicologo @ Sun Apr 13 said:


> All this nonsensical discussion can be boiled down to this: rgames says there's no correlation between quality and revenues. And states that as a fact.
> 
> Those who do not agree have a simple task: prove that there is a correlation between quality and revenue.
> 
> How can one do that? Well, they have to define "quality" and then gather data to prove that if a piece has "more quality" it generates "more revenue", and if a piece has "less quality" it generates "less revenue".
> 
> Because there are no standards to define "quality" that are consensual, there is no actual way to make this prove.
> 
> Therefore this discussion in nonsensical because there is no way to prove it empirically.



All of which demonstrates very nicely why Richard cannot make a statement like "quality doesn't matter" and not be taken to task for it. And conversely, the reason why framing the debate less dogmatically and more sensibly ("does the music work for its intended purpose") has been embraced by almost everyone else contributing to the thread it seems. Which happily means that the entire thread has certainly not been nonsensical. Lots of good stuff from Daryl and Michael in the past few posts, for example.

Oh and Michael I'll absolutely talk about my shortcomings over the proverbial pint, I'm really very good indeed at shortcomings.


----------



## Jaap

I agree with Guy, very valuable and very nice contribution from Daryl and Michael in the last posts!

On knowing your shortcomings: I think ones biggest strength is to know what you can't do and have the courage to notify your client. Saves you and your client a lot of headaches and I experienced in the past with a possible game job that a producer was really happy about my honesty that he referred me to another producer and later came back when he needed something he knew I could do.

@Musicologo: libraries like DeWolfe, Extreme Music, KPM, Killer Tracks, Immediate Music etc have proven itself over time (some even over decades) with very high quality music being used and demanded by a large variety of clients.


----------



## rayinstirling

"The lads' doth protest too much, methinks." okay a slight alteration as boys will be boys.

Richard has you all very jumpy. Get over it and back into the servants quarters.


----------



## doctornine

Hah, to Donwton you shall go…..

Let me boil it down for you….. there are those of us here that do library as a job. A full time, all day, every day, job. 
Despite what 99% of this forum think, it's not an easy gig that you can do with your eyes shut. And it's not something everyone can do. Writing music that can work in a tv scenario for multiple different possible end uses is not the walk in the park that you all seem to think it is.

What I, and I suspect the other guys who do this take exception too, is being talked down to by people who do it as a hobby. 

Sorry. But thats how it is.

End of.


----------



## Guy Rowland

rayinstirling @ Sun Apr 13 said:


> "The lads' doth protest too much, methinks." okay a slight alteration as boys will be boys.
> 
> Richard has you all very jumpy. Get over it and back into the servants quarters.



Nah, I'm gonna call you out on that, Ray. And I'm allowed to get huffy as I've never written for a production music library in my life, so it can't be taken personally  But I have USED a lot, and have built up my own mini library I use myself when its appropriate.

Here's why I felt Richard's posts need addressing. There's a lot of folks at VI-C who look here for advice from people in the know. Richard is both articulate and knowledgeable. For someone starting out, I genuinely felt that they might take his words at face value, and it felt wrong to let it go unchallenged as "quality has nothing to do with it" is supremely bad advice - both demotivating and plain wrong (as has been much discussed). Of course everyone is entitled to their views, but now someone starting out can read a much more balanced range of views and experiences (which I have to say seems to boil down to Richard in one corner and everyone else in the other).

So absolutely those were posts worth challenging. Hopefully people reading this thread who are interested in library work will have got something genuinely helpful as a result.


----------



## Stephen Rees

@Jaap - Thanks for bring us back to soup. Appreciated!

@Guy - The opinions of people who actually USE library music are tremendously valuable. Perhaps the greatest value of all. You are the people who actually generate library music composers money after all, and the reasons why you might choose or discard a piece of music is at the very heart of the matter. I hope more library music users can share their views if there are any here.....


----------



## rgames

Musicologo @ Sun Apr 13 said:


> Therefore this discussion in nonsensical because there is no way to prove it empirically.


Exactly. Discussing quality in music or any artform, whether applied to practical use like library music or otherwise, is pointless. Whether you're talking about the application of the music or the music itself, you can't define what quality means and you certainly can't relate it to revenues. At least I can't, and given the absence of any such explanation in this and the previous threads on this topic, I'm forced to maintain my position in that regard.

Furthermore, I dislike the very idea of defining quality in music. There is no musical quality, only musical voices. I might not like the track that someone threw together in 5 minutes, but you know what? Maybe I would. Who knows - and who cares? Judge the music on its own merit, not on the merit of the amount of time or technique used to produce it.

These discussions always go the same way: someone asks about library music and I say focus on building a network and expanding your catalog. Then someone else says quality is important. Then I say I've not seen evidence to support that statement because I don't know how to define quality in a meaningful way, so I ask for evidence and somehow that gets translated into someone thinking I said library music is low-quality (which I never said).

I'm cursed with a rational mind (which is why people can't get through my skin - I'm like a main battle tank) so I'm completely open to the idea that I'm wrong and there is some meaningful definition of "Musical Quality" but I've never seen it.

And despite the protestations in this thread that it does exist, I still haven't seen it!

rgames

P.S. The fact that people agree on a point doesn't mean it's true - for most of history, people agreed that the Earth is flat. There needs to be some kind of factual check in order to call it reality - if there is no factual check, it's just opinion or groupthink. When people thought the Earth was flat, it took a lot of convincing to get them to understand the truth that it's not: it sure seems flat to me - what about you? It doesn't magically become round when everyone agrees that it's round. It was round the whole time. And, of course, there are still people who think the Earth is flat.

Gentlemen, the Earth is round!


----------



## Jaap

Richard,

I think that I came to a point to agree that we disagree, which is natural and logical a human discussion and nothing wrong with that, but before I agree to disagree I want to point out one last time a few things. Just for others to make my point clear so that people can see on what we disagree (and I agree that we disagree :mrgreen: )

However it is good that somebody who is gathering info on stepping into the world of production libraries that there is some very useful and valuable information from people who (Michael, Daryl, Stephen Rees and Stephen Cullo) have been working for long time in this industry, know the ins and outs and know what the bizz is made of when working full-time (and there is the difference between them and you Richard) what is needed to survive and earn a living from it.

Let me give a metaphore. I can start building houses because I build once my own house and it is still standing and with the knowledge of building my own house I think somehow that I know exactly how to build other houses. Lets say I build next to me a house for my neighbour and heck, it is working! I earn money, the house is still standing.
I want to make it bigger and I decide to start building a house, but instead of building a house on nice solid ground (as my own is standing on) I have to build a house now near the ocean, where the ground is weak, muddy and unstable and damn, there is a even a risk on earthquakes there, but hey, you know what. I know how to build a house and if I build a house, it should work everywhere!
Three years later the house I build near the ocean is collapsing, not working because I didn't had the technical and inside knowledge, because I had a limited vision of what was working. I didn't do enough research on how to make viable constructions on different grounds, with different elements with different demands.

You get the point I think 
 
Quality is not only what is visible and obvious. Quality is good and well though construction. A good quality house can be as ugly as hell (which is the subjective part which you tend to discuss about, but the esthetics are not per definition quality), but if it has a solid and intelligent construction it can be of very good quality and last long long time. Same goes with music and with everything else.


----------



## Stephen Rees

This has been one of the most useful and insightful library music threads we have had. There have been lots of comments from people working in the industry sharing views that they would normally keep to themselves on how things work and what to expect.

Richard, I completely accept that your experience is what you say it is. But your experience of the library music business is one of many, and it is flat out wrong to extrapolate your single experience into an assumption that 'this must be how the library music business works throughout the whole industry for everyone in it'.

Do you have something practical to share from your experience that would really help a library music newbie? That is what this thread is about.


----------



## Daryl

Stephen, I think Richard has made his feelings perfectly clear. In a way, he's also right.

If a client is looking for music in a RF on-line library, chances are that cost, or lack of it, is the key factor. Most of the tracks in the library are probably not very good, by any criteria, so even if you write good stuff, it will get lost amongst the cr*p. Clients looking for good stuff, won't bother with these libraries, because it would be a waste of their time trawling through hours of coal just to find a diamond. Therefore if one wants to get involved with these sort of libraries, it is better to submit loads of tracks, even if they are no good, on the grounds that the more you submit, the more you stand a chance in being lucky.

However, where Richard is wrong, is that the higher end libraries don't work like that. All albums are carefully researched, both from end users and from sub-Publishers perspective, so that they are targeted properly. Care is taken over production and format, as well as making sure that the briefs are adhered to. Richard may argue that all this is Networking, but that will only work providing that the brief is fulfilled satisfactorily. A badly produced and written track in this market won't get any usage, because the clients tend to have a better understanding of their product and higher standards in what is and what is not acceptable for their end product. Unless the brief is for a badly produced and written track of course. :wink: 

D


----------



## marclawsonmusic

Stephen Rees @ Sun Apr 13 said:


> I thought I was in the 'Musicians Helping Musicians' forum, but I seem to have landed in the 'Philosophers Arguing With Philosophers' forum.



^^^ This, but I still find myself coming back.... 

o[])


----------



## Valérie_D

Very interesting thread, I was thinking about submitting my tracks to libraries as well.

I would be interested in knowing which libraries (broadcast librarys) is out there, low-middle and high ends, for instance, are any of these worth a shot? :

http://www.apmmusic.com/apm-libraries

Thanks for the information!


----------



## Aaron Sapp

Seems these music library threads pop up more often. Still feel compelled to give my two cents... 

For those who don't feel compelled to give 110% to writing brilliantly-produced, useful production music -- you're absolutely right. Quality doesn't matter. I implore you -- please keep writing for the lowest common denominator and pinch a musical turd (or two) out a day. It's a cesspool of mediocrity and the editors don't know any better. 

For those of you who give a damn, stop it. You're fooling yourselves. Stop going through your ASCAP/BMI statements and tallying up your random surveys like a giggling schoolboy. It's repulsive and an insult to the scoring community.


----------



## Stephen Rees

Valérie_D @ Mon Apr 14 said:


> Very interesting thread, I was thinking about submitting my tracks to libraries as well.
> 
> I would be interested in knowing which libraries (broadcast librarys) is out there, low-middle and high ends, for instance, are any of these worth a shot? :
> 
> http://www.apmmusic.com/apm-libraries
> 
> Thanks for the information!



The first three (KPM, Bruton (which is a Universal label) and Sonoton) are what I would call 'Top Tier' libraries. I have no knowledge of the rest….


----------



## Stephen Rees

@Daryl - I agree.

If I were to give someone a single piece of advice in approaching a high end library it would be - only pitch your best work to them. If you manage to pique their interest enough that they ask you to write for them - bring your 'A' game. Your absolute best. If your tracks are not top quality, it isn't just the case that they won't earn you much money. They won't even be released, and the library will probably not wish to work with you again.

Perhaps the best way to learn the library music biz is to get in with a few good libraries and establish a rapport with contacts there who really know their part of the business. They will teach you all you need to know on the job.

Ultimately, my experience has been that if you treat the library music business with respect, it will respect you back, giving you the possibility of a creatively and financially rewarding career composing music. If that sounds appealing to anyone why not have a go? I do sincerely wish anyone that tries all the best.


----------



## Guy Rowland

There is certainly huge variation in the quality of libraries, and of course some specialise in certain things. Then there are quirks - there's a library called Videohelper, and the guy who writes the track descriptions is clearly in the wrong job, he's like Choco meets Frankie Doyle. But the music itself is almost invariably a disappointment, to the point where I almost don't look there any more... in the end, the music has to deliver the goods.

Oh - just seen they've left the EMI consortium, so that decision has been made for me.

The libraries I use most currently are KPM, Megatrax, Ded Good and Juice. Historically I've had great mileage out of Carlin (now KPM), Bruton, Warner Chappel, Extreme. There have been plenty of others I've used more occasionally. But I tend to start with those I know are proven good, and those above - especially KPM - are top of that list. Oh, and sometimes some library composers even become known in wider circles - among many production colleagues, the name of Dick Walter is treated with holy awe, and with good reason - the man's an absolute genius.

One point that I'm not sure has been made yet is the disproportionate amount of time that is spent at VI-C discussing orchestral music. While we all fret and argue over the finer points of the latest string library to be released this week, its true to say that orchestral music is a relatively small part of library music as a whole. I've no doubt that there are thousands of working composers out there for whom orchestral templates are a total irrelevance. Literally every genre and every era needs to be represented in production music.

Meanwhile, fascinating to me that Richard has never once attempted to engage with the many arguments that show the flaws in his logic. I find myself referring to my po-faced signature yet again...


----------



## guitarman1960

I'm not supporting Richards view, but I get the feeling he was arguing more from a general standpoint that you often come across when discussing the merits or otherwise of artistic or creative work, whether that is music, paintings, films or whatever, and that is that the concept of 'good' or 'bad' or 'high quality' or 'crap' are entirely subjective when applied to the 'Arts'.
This probably brings us back to the old question of whether someone working to a 'brief' is creating 'Art' or just a piece of work. That opens up a whole other can of worms.
It's pretty impossible to be wholly objective about a piece of music, so trying to define 'quality' is very difficult, but as mentioned earlier when working to fulfill a brief it's the question of 'fit for purpose' that defines whether the work is successful or not.
Epic trailer music is a genre that always seems to spark off pretty intense discussions, and there are what I would consider some great pieces of music in that genre, there are also lots of very cliched tracks that just follow the formula, but still fulfill the brief and have fantastic production quality. Are these cliched tracks lower 'quality' than the tracks I really like? Or is that just subjective?


----------



## AC986

Aaron Sapp @ Sun Apr 13 said:


> For those who don't feel compelled to give 110% to writing brilliantly-produced, useful production music -- you're absolutely right. Quality doesn't matter. I implore you -- please keep writing for the lowest common denominator and pinch a musical turd (or two) out a day. It's a cesspool of mediocrity and the editors don't know any better.
> 
> For those of you who give a damn, stop it. You're fooling yourselves. Stop going through your ASCAP/BMI statements and tallying up your random surveys like a giggling schoolboy. It's repulsive and an insult to the scoring community.



Actually I hear quite a lot of production music. And a lot of it is good. I also hear a lot of very good scoring that is done specifically to film. Also watch and hear a lot a films where the score is a total bollocks of derivative crap, where you sit there and think, they were better than this 60 years ago. In fact, quite a lot of films would have been better served by editing in production music in the first place imo. My take on it is, if you're going to be derivative, at least be derivative in a good way. The way someone like James Horner is, for example. Does he do library music?

Cesspool of mediocrity it may well be to a large extent, but so is a lot of filmscores today. A lot of them are noise and sound design because the writers and directors don't know any better BUT they do know their audience; I'll give them that. Their audience sit in cinemas texting. They have about as much interest in a score or scoring communities as your pet dog.

This thread is about music libraries afaik and the 'scoring community' could start up their own thread about the 'scoring community' can't they?


----------



## AC986

guitarman1960 @ Mon Apr 14 said:


> but still fulfill the brief and have fantastic production quality. Are these cliched tracks lower 'quality' than the tracks I really like? Or is that just subjective?



Its all about production quality. The content matters less and less these days.


----------



## guitarman1960

adriancook @ Mon Apr 14 said:


> guitarman1960 @ Mon Apr 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> but still fulfill the brief and have fantastic production quality. Are these cliched tracks lower 'quality' than the tracks I really like? Or is that just subjective?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its all about production quality. The content matters less and less these days.
Click to expand...


That would be a shame but may be true. I've been hearing a lot of trailer tracks where they have hired a real orchestra and choir and gone for maximum production quality whatever the cost and yet the music itself is still very cliched. On the reverse of that I also hear some great trailer tracks that are all samples and synths and probably cost a fraction to produce but are musically much more interesting.


----------



## Stephen Rees

@Adrian - I believe Aaron was being ironic. He is a library writer himself, and it was rather a witty post I thought


----------



## AC986

Stephen Rees @ Mon Apr 14 said:


> @Adrian - I believe Aaron was being ironic. He is a library writer himself, and it was rather a witty post I thought



I realised that Steve. However, just in case there was any misunderstanding among anyone who doesn't get irony, it's worth pointing out also, that there is some ill and bad feeling in the two camps. Certainly well done to Aaron and what tremendously good music he puts out; I've heard some of it.

I think it's fair to say that the scoring community regard library music as more of a threat than it actually is and visa versa. Very different markets imo. Didn't Bernard Herrmann write library music?


----------



## Guy Rowland

guitarman1960 @ Mon Apr 14 said:


> Epic trailer music is a genre that always seems to spark off pretty intense discussions, and there are what I would consider some great pieces of music in that genre, there are also lots of very cliched tracks that just follow the formula, but still fulfill the brief and have fantastic production quality. Are these cliched tracks lower 'quality' than the tracks I really like? Or is that just subjective?



It's actually pretty difficult to find an epic trailer cue - from any source - that is genuinely original. Most trailers that feel original use music that isn't really epic trailer stuff. We might argue about a few bright exceptions of course. And it doesn't imply that trailer music is bad, far from it - it's pure originality we're discussing here. And In general, I'd say originality is a very long way from being a main requirement for most production music. Production music tends to be pretty functional. I have heard some sensational pieces of music that totally work in their own right, but they are fairly unusual. And you couldn't accurately describe these pieces as "the best" or "the highest quality", since such broad sweeping terms (as much discussed here) are fairly meaningless.

If Richard had chosen the word "originality" rather than "quality" then much of this discussion wouldn't have happened. You can have a good career in production music, earning good money and great placements, without an ounce of what some might call originality. That said, tracks do stand out which have something about them - the melody, the instrumentation - that makes them sit above the crowd. I wouldn't necessarily call that spark true originality, mind.

But enough vagaries - let's take an example that happened last year. I was looking for some music to accompany a stage act on an entertainment TV show, since theirs was unclearable. It was sorta bright and jazzy - not especially good, from memory. I figured that dixieland jazz was the place to start - goodness knows I don't have anything in my arsenal that answers that description - so I put the tags into the search box and pressed "enter". What was I looking out for? Bright, fun, fast tempo and authentic-sounding. Anything that sounded like midi would get thrown out instantly. I pretty quickly found something that answered that description, sent it off to production and artists. Everyone was delighted and it worked great in the end.

Was I after something original? Lord no. I wouldn't know what original dixieland jazz even sounded like, come to think of it. But it was high quality - it sounded completely authentic and absolutely matched the brief. Something more esoteric would have been wrong, something done with midi would have been wrong. But the track was chosen because it had good production values (not fake instruments) and conformed perfectly to the cliche I had in my head that is dixieland jazz.

That's just one of a hundred examples of searches I made over the past 12 months. Perhaps it puts some of the more philosophical debates into perspective, I don't know.


----------



## rJames

Musicologo @ Sun Apr 13 said:


> All this nonsensical discussion can be boiled down to this: rgames says there's no correlation between quality and revenues. And states that as a fact.
> 
> Those who do not agree have a simple task: prove that there is a correlation between quality and revenue.



The sun in a distant galaxy called RX881 is actually a rubber grommet factory that ships fabulously colored flower arrangements to a sister star in a twin galaxy even farther away.

Those who do not agree have a simple task: prove that there is no correlation between distance from the earth and the ability for stars to create flower arrangements.


----------



## rJames

On a serious note...

It is plain silly to say that quality has nothing to do with licensing music or even that it is not more important than quantity, luck etc.

As has been stated in this thread, which particular library your music is in, how that library is marketed and targeted is extremely important. Quality IS the determining factor of whether your music is accepted into that library.

Sure quality is subjective but the owners of those libraries get to impose their definition to music that they accept. This is just basic common sense. Its the same in all businesses.

Quality is the universal determining factor in licensing then luck can play a factor and quantity has a direct relationship to salary or income.

Ron

BTW I'll bet that TJB makes more money than rgames through licensing music... but then again, he is probably just lucky.


----------



## Jaap

rJames @ Mon Apr 14 said:


> Musicologo @ Sun Apr 13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this nonsensical discussion can be boiled down to this: rgames says there's no correlation between quality and revenues. And states that as a fact.
> 
> Those who do not agree have a simple task: prove that there is a correlation between quality and revenue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sun in a distant galaxy called RX881 is actually a rubber grommet factory that ships fabulously colored flower arrangements to a sister star in a twin galaxy even farther away.
> 
> Those who do not agree have a simple task: prove that there is no correlation between distance from the earth and the ability for stars to create flower arrangements.
Click to expand...


This made my day o-[][]-o 

and agree on everything you said in your serious note and yeah TJB is just a lucky guy


----------



## EastWest Lurker

In all endeavors there are talkers and there are doers.

Be a doer and the marketplace will tell you how well you are doing. The rest is ephemeral.


----------



## Musicologo

Van Gogh was a hell of a doer and the market told him zero. He sold zero paintings while alive.

Still, he was not so ephemeral. 

And btw, I have no means to prove that distant galaxies do not deliver flower arrangements... I might chose NOT to believe that becasue I find highly unlikely given the information I possess on how the world around me works... but we will never know that for sure.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Musicologo @ Mon Apr 14 said:


> Van Gogh was a hell of a doer and the market told him zero. He sold zero paintings while alive.
> 
> Still, he was not so ephemeral.
> 
> And btw, I have no means to prove that distant galaxies do not deliver flower arrangements... I might chose NOT to believe that becasue I find highly unlikely given the information I possess on how the world around me works... but we will never know that for sure.



Writing for music libraries is primarily a commercial endeavor, not an artistic one. Peter Max would be a better analogy than Van Gogh.


----------



## KEnK

I just want to say that this thread has been extremely valuable to me.
Especially all the advice given by Mr. Reese and Mr. Rowland.
A big thanks to you both!

It comes at a time when I'm just beginning to research what doing production music entails. 
It's not something I've considered until recently.

Although I prefer to maintain a perhaps naive "belief" in quality,
I have to say "Kudos to Richard" for keeping to his position.

I do see what he's saying, and to me it's not irrelevant to the discussion.
Occasionally in debates here I've taken an unpopular position.
It's not easy- >8o 

So my hat is off to you Richard, as well o-[][]-o 

k


----------



## Stephen Rees

@KEnK: I hope you enjoy your library music adventure. I suspect you could also have a great career in diplomacy if you chose to


----------



## AC986

Musicologo @ Mon Apr 14 said:


> Van Gogh was a hell of a doer and the market told him zero. He sold zero paintings while alive.



That's the whole point of the whole deal re: library music. Van Gogh was original. Library music has to be, and basically is always derivative. Had Van Gogh painted in the style of his time that the public were comfortable with, he would have sold paintings in his own time.

That's not to say library music cannot be original. But it should be of an originality that everyone is comfortable with.


----------



## rJames

adriancook @ Mon Apr 14 said:


> Musicologo @ Mon Apr 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Van Gogh was a hell of a doer and the market told him zero. He sold zero paintings while alive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the whole point of the whole deal re: library music. Van Gogh was original. Library music has to be, and basically is always derivative. Had Van Gogh painted in the style of his time that the public were comfortable with, he would have sold paintings in his own time.
> 
> That's not to say library music cannot be original. But it should be of an originality that everyone is comfortable with.
Click to expand...


So true, and one aspect of the "quality," that we are talking about is how well the cue fits into this expected, "comfort zone."


----------



## Ed

adriancook @ Mon Apr 14 said:


> That's not to say library music cannot be original. But it should be of an originality that everyone is comfortable with.



Its not even that. Really "original" work can do very well, its just less likely you'll hit on some amazing new sound everyone is going to go gaga over. To change the game in library music if thats ones intention needs to be done slowly.


----------



## AC986

Ed @ Mon Apr 14 said:


> adriancook @ Mon Apr 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not to say library music cannot be original. But it should be of an originality that everyone is comfortable with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not even that. Really "original" work can do very well, its just less likely you'll hit on some amazing new sound everyone is going to go gaga over. To change the game in library music if thats ones intention needs to be done slowly.
Click to expand...


I want to do original work, as probably everyone else does, but the music library I deal with don't want that because it doesn't sell very well. And they should know tbh. Been at it for donkeys years. Yesterday they said move on to Thomas Newman after you finish this track etc. And that's what you have to do a lot of the time. 

The main complaint I hear from the guys ( and they're really good chaps, I'm lucky) is writers just throw stuff at them and expect them to put it up. They won't and all of it has to be album based anyway. To get an whole album of _totally_ original work _that was any good_ would be almost impossible I would say.


----------



## vimonster

Longtime lurker.. in this thread I just couldn't help myself.

To rgames, sure, how about you record yourself mashing a piano with your entire arm through your laptop microphone. I'm sure if you make enough of those tracks (quantity) and network with the right people, and throw in a bit of luck, your 5 minutes of 32kbps unmastered mashing will be just as good as anything else. Right?

What an absurd discussion about quality.

1. rgames makes a statement. Fine, burden of proof. Show it to me.

2. Quality is subjective? All opinions in this realm are subjective: including the 'fact' that beating an old lady to death because it makes you laugh is wrong. You want to go down that path? No opinion is anything more than subjective (including this one). But just as the case of beating an old lady to death for your amusement is majority wrong, so is the sound of a mashed piano through a laptop microphone majority wrong to listeners. That recording is low quality. Both musically and technically.

3. No correlation between quality and revenue in the library music world?! Hahaha! Listen to Extreme's music, which makes a ton of cash, and then listen to Pond5 music, which makes a ton of GBs on a server somewhere. Then repeat this with every top flight library vs every low level library. The, once again, majority opinion will be that those top libraries have higher quality music. They also make more revenue.

I guess perhaps you are angry that your music didn't do well, and are trying to find a way to feel better about it. In a way, that is what philosophy is all about: trying to feel better about our own disappointments by saying what's wrong with the world outside.


----------



## vimonster

I wanted to answer soundhound's original post in a separate reply:

If you're serious about music libraries then I would do this:

1. Understand it will take you _at least _a year to get the first royalty checks from when you get music signed, not just accepted.

2. This varies on your 'quality' output but I would say: Get together at least 50 tracks, preferably 100. Organize them into genres and quality levels. Identify 5 libraries you think are good in their respective areas, and submit 10-20 tracks to each library. Match each submission to the library's musical area.

3. While you wait for the above to reply, if you have any extra tracks which you consider to be 'not so good', submit them to lower level RF libraries, preferably under a pseudonym.

The idea here is to spread your tracks out to best match them to each library's strengths, while at the same time allowing you to test out each library with a few (10-20) tracks to see how well it goes. And the idea is also to make use of every track you have. Lower quality stuff still has a market, as has been said countless times. I think almost no track a decent composer makes has zero revenue potential.

4. After 2-3 years you'll see who's making you good money and in what genres. Now focus in on those areas and make the best tracks you can for them - and as many as possible.

5. No doubt you'll do this naturally, but expand your repertoire and skills and continue doing 1 through 4 for the rest of your life..

6. Retire to the Riviera/Alps/Thailand/Bognor Regis - this depends on how well you do 1 through 5.

I have seen in my experience these kinds of figures:

A friend with over 1,000 tracks in RF makes about $150,000 a year.
A friend with 100 tracks in a top tier makes a lot more.
Plenty of people have 100+ tracks in RF and make under $20k a year.

What is most pleasing about the library music world is that it's not about networking and schmoozing. It's about as close to a meritocracy as I can see in the music business: if you want in at a top library, you simply have to make something excellent. They don't care in the slightest who you are (as long as you haven't plastered tracks all over the internet already - that's common sense).

Coming from working in live music, DJing, film music and so on, this is the only part of music as a business where it doesn't matter what country you're in, what time it is, what you look like, how old you are, whether you're vegetarian or not - all they care about is... _quality_ (and not being a pain in the neck to deal with obviously).


----------



## ed buller

Most excellent first post: welcome aboard.

e o=<


----------



## Jetzer

What a thread. Thanks people. 

I am planning to join the library market the next couple of months. I am writing tracks right now, specifically for libraries. Just to make some side income, I don't expect too much this year. 

But I plan to make an album in 1-2 years, however long it takes me to write decent tracks. Add live musicians etc. I hope to get into a few bigger libraries with material like that. Should be a nice project / personal goal for the next few years. 

I wonder, Emmet Cooke states that library tracks normally are like 2-3 min in length. 
Is this also true for the bigger libraries, album material? Or is it more common in the lower libraries?

I wonder if it is uncommon to write 4-5 min long tracks, have the themes a bit more developed.


----------



## MichaelL

JH @ Tue Apr 15 said:


> I wonder if it is uncommon to write 4-5 min long tracks, have the themes a bit more developed.




Go to the websites for some top libraries, like KPM, Megatrax, DeWolfe, etc.

Scan through their catalogs and listen. You'll see the most common lengths and level of "development" etc.


----------



## MichaelL

vimonster @ Tue Apr 15 said:


> I
> The idea here is to spread your tracks out to best match them to each library's strengths, while at the same time allowing you to test out each library with a few (10-20) tracks to see how well it goes. And the idea is also to make use of every track you have. Lower quality stuff still has a market, as has been said countless times. I think almost no track a decent composer makes has zero revenue potential......
> 
> 
> I have seen in my experience these kinds of figures:
> 
> A friend with over 1,000 tracks in RF makes about $150,000 a year.
> A friend with 100 tracks in a top tier makes a lot more.
> Plenty of people have 100+ tracks in RF and make under $20k a year.
> 
> .




Yes, great post vimonster. 

The first paragraph above is totally on point. Yes! Make use of every track that you have!!!

The latter part is a bit more relative to each composers needs. 
Many people would be comfortable somewhere between 20K and 150K per year. 


Thank you.


----------



## AC986

Oh God no! Not Bognor Regis. Please. There lies insanity.

Very very useful post from Vimonster. Lots of good advice and information.


----------



## Stephen Rees

OK. We can delete the rest of the thread and just leave Soundhound's question and vimonster's answer and we're done


----------



## Jaap

But...........but............but, I didn't finish my soup yet!


----------



## Stephen Rees

Jaap @ Tue Apr 15 said:


> But...........but............but, I didn't finish my soup yet!



Ha Ha . I was joking of course. There is a lot of really good info on this thread (also soup comments) but vimonster's post rather succinctly cut to the heart of the matter I thought.

Particularly worth mentioning the meritocracy part. No-one cares who you are; no-one cares what academic qualifications you have; no-one cares where you live; no-one cares who you know. That is why anyone can at least have a go. If the demo material you send to libraries is good enough you will eventually get your chance. All you have to do is catch the right person, on the right day, with the right track(s).


----------



## Jaap

Stephen Rees @ Tue Apr 15 said:


> Jaap @ Tue Apr 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But...........but............but, I didn't finish my soup yet!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha Ha . I was joking of course. There is a lot of really good info on this thread (also soup comments) but vimonster's post rather succinctly cut to the heart of the matter I thought.
> 
> Particularly worth mentioning the meritocracy part. No-one cares who you are; no-one cares what academic qualifications you have; no-one cares where you live; no-one cares who you know. That is why anyone can at least have a go. If the demo material you send to libraries is good enough you will eventually get your chance. All you have to do is catch the right person, on the right day, with the right track(s).
Click to expand...


Very through about vimonster. A really great post! 

Made me hungry for a good pumpkin soup though.... o=?


----------



## Soundhound

I've just caught up on the last few days of this thread. Whew! Great info here, really insightful and helpful. I'm printing out vimonester's post and tacking it to the wall. To keep me focused, and to throw darts at when my Mac crashes. So I'll need more than one copy I guess.

I love the idea of a meritocracy, to whatever extent is possible. The idea that if you can make a go of this, you can do it from anywhere you want to be. How cool would that be! Of course if my stuff turns out to be shite and nobody buys it, there's always the pro tennis tour. 

Btw I'm one of the people who has bought library music over the years in my work. I can tell you that there's no accounting for taste with a lot of the people who are in positions to make decisions about this stuff (ad agencies, clients, not all, but plenty...). But the good producers at agencies who field these kinds of resources are well aware of who the players in the market are. In the old days it was called needle drops, not any more...

Ok, back to it. No fades on these things, right? Endings always so somebody can cut to it...


----------



## benmode

Yeah Soundhound, I'd assume fades aren't a great idea as it's super easy for anyone to add a fade if they want it. There are more options and therefore better chances of sales if you create endings  

Then again I have no experience with these libraries haha. I've read through this thread though, and now I wanna get into it too! Should I aim to make albums in certain styles and send those to the libraries? Or just send random tracks here and there? 

I've had a look at the stuff some of the people here have done and I've mainly found albums, but I think someone said something about people not doing albums anymore... asudfhgipaufg


----------



## AC986

benmode @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> Then again I have no experience with these libraries haha. I've read through this thread though, and now I wanna get into it too! Should I aim to make albums in certain styles and send those to the libraries? Or just send random tracks here and there?
> 
> I've had a look at the stuff some of the people here have done and I've mainly found albums, but I think someone said something about people not doing albums anymore... asudfhgipaufg



I just had a listen to some of your tracks on Souncloud and would have thought you would have no trouble getting a library(s) to give you a shot at an album. 
But as far as I know, a lot of the libraries out there want something different to what their current writers are already doing. There is an element of protectiveness with some libraries.

I would send in your links to the libraries that have been aforementioned here and ask them if they would want you to do an album in a certain style/genre and see what they come back with.


----------



## Stephen Rees

benmode @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> I've had a look at the stuff some of the people here have done and I've mainly found albums, but I think someone said something about people not doing albums anymore... asudfhgipaufg



I actually have never worked with a library that just asked me to submit individual tracks ad hoc that they would then release individually. All the library tracks I've ever submitted have become part of an album.

Some (most in fact) ask me for a complete themed album (I get an overall brief for say 'Fantasy' and provide an entire album of varied tracks to meet that brief). In contrast, one library I work with just offers me a single track or a few tracks on a larger album where they brief several composers very specifically to do different parts of the album. This means the album can be turned around very quickly.

Other people's experiences may be quite different of course.


----------



## benmode

Ooh right. Yeah I think I was getting mixed up about the whole process. I was thinking you just send them a track (or a load of tracks) out of nowhere that you'd like them to consider using. I shall take your advice and start sending some emails! I wonder if they'd be interested in some cheesy 80s glam rock haha. 

I had a listen to your fantasy stuff on Position Music, Stephen. Amazing stuff


----------



## Stephen Rees

benmode @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> I had a listen to your fantasy stuff on Position Music, Stephen. Amazing stuff



Thanks very much. Appreciated 

I wish you much success with your library music.


----------



## Arksun

Just finished reading this thread, a fascinating read with a wide range of different opinions.


----------



## GULL

As Jingle Punks has track limit of 45 for non exclusive artists, anybody signed exclusive with? Is it a good idea?


----------



## Allegro

Such posts, Much Value. Really great discussion going on here. I'd like to ask a couple of things from the guys who are working with high tier exclusive libraries.

How much 'acceptable' can a sample library track be and how much real recordings do they prefer? (not talking about it sounding good or bad). I think if they're getting demos after demos of Symphobia, eastwest,lass and what not. It won't have a nice impression on the listener even if the track sounds good on its own?


----------



## AC986

Allegro @ Tue Jun 03 said:


> How much 'acceptable' can a sample library track be and how much real recordings do they prefer? (not talking about it sounding good or bad). I think if they're getting demos after demos of Symphobia, eastwest,lass and what not. It won't have a nice impression on the listener even if the track sounds good on its own?



Don't think any of that matters. If the track sounds good, it could be done with anything. A row of kitchen sinks. A lot of examples are always being compared with a real orchestra sound versus a sampled one. Forget about that. Use a sampled one and make it sound like a really good track and they will use it regardless.


----------



## MichaelL

Allegro @ Tue Jun 03 said:


> Such posts, Much Value. Really great discussion going on here. I'd like to ask a couple of things from the guys who are working with high tier exclusive libraries.
> 
> How much 'acceptable' can a sample library track be and how much real recordings do they prefer? (not talking about it sounding good or bad). I think if they're getting demos after demos of Symphobia, eastwest,lass and what not. It won't have a nice impression on the listener even if the track sounds good on its own?





The quality of your writing, good our bad, will be revealed, no matter what samples you are using. 

If you are a great writer it will be evident. If not, the best samples in the world, or even a live orchestra, won't help.

Edit: Keep in mind it is very possible that one can be a great composer yet simply not understand how to write _music for libraries._ Great music does not necessarily translate into great library music, if it's not useful. In fact, the most utilitarian and useful library music often falls short on the "great music" yardstick. I'm reminded of a recent call for submissions in which the library stated "No Film Scores."


----------



## RiffWraith

Allegro @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> How much 'acceptable' can a sample library track be and how much real recordings do they prefer?



Almost all lib tracks are 100% samples. A small portion may have some live players mixed in (the composer plays guitar; he/she has a flautist come over to play a few lines, etc.).... but I highly doubt that any that require a full 80+ piece orch. are all live. With the recording costs what they are - even in the EU - it is just not feasible to spend all that money on a library track. Clients (music sups, etc.) know this, as do the libraries themselves.

Cheers.


----------



## Guy Rowland

RiffWraith @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> Allegro @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much 'acceptable' can a sample library track be and how much real recordings do they prefer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Almost all lib tracks are 100% samples. A small portion may have some live players mixed in (the composer plays guitar; he/she has a flautist come over to play a few lines, etc.).... but I highly doubt that any that require a full 80+ piece orch. are all live. With the recording costs what they are - even in the EU - it is just not feasible to spend all that money on a library track. Clients (music sups, etc.) know this, as do the libraries themselves.
> 
> Cheers.
Click to expand...


Just as a footnote to that - that's probably true of orchestral (though I think some do still use some live), but not so much for other genres. Of course stuff like drums are common to be sampled, but I hear a lot of live stuff generally in the good libraries.


----------



## Daryl

Some libraries have a mixture of all live, hybrid and all sample tracks. It all depends what market they are aiming at whether or not it is worth spending the money.

D


----------



## MichaelL

Daryl @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> Some libraries have a mixture of all live, hybrid and all sample tracks. It all depends what market they are aiming at whether or not it is worth spending the money.
> 
> D




+1. It really does depend on the market that you're aiming at, and what you mean by top tier library. Some people have varying definitions of top tier.


----------



## RiffWraith

Daryl @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> Some libraries have a mixture of all live, hybrid and all sample tracks. It all depends what market they are aiming at whether or not it is worth spending the money.
> 
> D



So, you are telling me, that some libraries actually go out and spend tens of thousands of dollars to record tracks that are going to sit in a bin, and hopefully get used one day on some cable or network TV show? Based on a) what I have been told, b) what I have seen, and c) common sense, I highly doubt that is true. Unless you are talking about boutique trailer music houses, like IM, PM, TSFH, AM, etc., who yes, actually do just that.

Cheers.


----------



## MichaelL

RiffWraith @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> So, you are telling me, that some libraries actually go out and spend tens of thousands of dollars to record tracks that are going to sit in a bin, and hopefully get used one day on some cable or network TV show? Based on a) what I have been told, b) what I have seen, and c) common sense, I highly doubt that is true. Unless you are talking about boutique trailer music houses, like IM, PM, TSFH, AM, etc., who yes, actually do just that.
> 
> Cheers.




Riff, I think you may be taking too narrow a view of the library business. It's not all reality cable and Jingle Punks et al out there.

This composer has hundreds of cues with Megatrax and Killer etc. He's one of the best.

http://donnwilkerson.com/The_Music_Of_Donn_Wilkerson/Welcome.html (http://donnwilkerson.com/The_Music_Of_D ... lcome.html)


----------



## Arksun

To be fair to Daryl, he might have been referring to such individual library composers that are very capable musicians as well, who can play piano, guitar, violin brass or woodwind (sadly I'm not one of them.)

There would be no 'tens of thousands' cost here, simply recording themselves in their own studio and blending in with samples & synths if needed.

It's quite extraordinary what can be achieved by one person live multi-tracking themselves judging by some of the youtube videos I've seen over the years.


----------



## MichaelL

Arksun @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> To be fair to Daryl, he might have been referring to such individual library composers that are very capable musicians as well, who can play piano, guitar, violin brass or woodwind (sadly I'm not one of them.)
> 
> There would be no 'tens of thousands' cost here, simply recording themselves in their own studio and blending in with samples & synths if needed.
> 
> It's quite extraordinary what can be achieved by one person live multi-tracking themselves judging by some of the youtube videos I've seen over the years.



Arksun...see my post above.

And Riff....

Also, see the post from John Graham half way down the page here: http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38611


----------



## Stephen Rees

Allegro @ Tue Jun 03 said:


> How much 'acceptable' can a sample library track be and how much real recordings do they prefer?



Just speaking about orchestral music, my experience has been that it is perfectly acceptable (even 'expected') that the music you present to libraries will be sampled. They won't expect you to pay for orchestral sessions yourself.

If they want to record for real, they will pay for it.


----------



## JohnG

Stephen Rees @ 4th June 2014 said:


> Just speaking about orchestral music, my experience has been that it is perfectly acceptable (even 'expected') that the music you present to libraries will be sampled. They won't expect you to pay for orchestral sessions yourself.
> 
> If they want to record for real, they will pay for it.



I have had the same experience as Stephen.


----------



## Daryl

RiffWraith @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> Daryl @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some libraries have a mixture of all live, hybrid and all sample tracks. It all depends what market they are aiming at whether or not it is worth spending the money.
> 
> D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you are telling me, that some libraries actually go out and spend tens of thousands of dollars to record tracks that are going to sit in a bin, and hopefully get used one day on some cable or network TV show? Based on a) what I have been told, b) what I have seen, and c) common sense, I highly doubt that is true. Unless you are talking about boutique trailer music houses, like IM, PM, TSFH, AM, etc., who yes, actually do just that.
> 
> Cheers.
Click to expand...

Jeff, whilst you're entitled to call me a liar, I would suggest that you get your facts straight first. You should not assume that your experiences are necessarily the same as everyone elses.

FYI, my last 3 library albums for KPM had the following musician numbers; 47, 90, 39.

D


----------



## Daryl

Arksun @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> To be fair to Daryl, he might have been referring to such individual library composers that are very capable musicians as well, who can play piano, guitar, violin brass or woodwind (sadly I'm not one of them.)


Yes, that happens a lot as well, but I was talking about booking a proper orchestra in a proper studio. Something which I've been involved in many times. In fact I'm conducting some sessions for a friend of mine in a few weeks, and we have 55 musicians booked.

D


----------



## RiffWraith

Daryl @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> RiffWraith @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some libraries have a mixture of all live, hybrid and all sample tracks. It all depends what market they are aiming at whether or not it is worth spending the money.
> 
> D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you are telling me, that some libraries actually go out and spend tens of thousands of dollars to record tracks that are going to sit in a bin, and hopefully get used one day on some cable or network TV show? Based on a) what I have been told, b) what I have seen, and c) common sense, I highly doubt that is true. Unless you are talking about boutique trailer music houses, like IM, PM, TSFH, AM, etc., who yes, actually do just that.
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jeff, whilst you're entitled to call me a liar, I would suggest that you get your facts straight first. You should not assume that your experiences are necessarily the same as everyone elses.
> 
> FYI, my last 3 library albums for KPM had the following musician numbers; 47, 90, 39.
> 
> D
Click to expand...


Dude - I wasn't calling you a liar, c'mon man.


----------



## Guy Rowland

RiffWraith @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> Daryl @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff, whilst you're entitled to call me a liar, I would suggest that you get your facts straight first. You should not assume that your experiences are necessarily the same as everyone elses.
> 
> FYI, my last 3 library albums for KPM had the following musician numbers; 47, 90, 39.
> 
> D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude - I wasn't calling you a liar, c'mon man.
Click to expand...


Well no Jeff, strictly speaking you "highly doubted" it was true, which is a hair's breadth different. But you're kind of evading the point imo - live is clearly (and happily) still with us at the top tier. And the composer isn't expected to foot the bill.


----------



## AC986

First Jeffrey tries to destroy all British oboists in what can only be described as his personal and total vendetta, then followed by his ultimate destruction of reed players, and now this!!!!! 

This could become the Boston Tea Party if allowed to continue.

What?!!?!


>8o


----------



## RiffWraith

Ok, I am back - had to run before. Please accept my apologies if I cam across as a bit of a dick; if we were in person discussing this over a beer, it wouldn't have come across that way, and we'd all be laughing right about now.



Daryl @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> FYI, my last 3 library albums for KPM had the following musician numbers; 47, 90, 39.
> 
> D



Are we talking a bunch of cues you wrote, which were added to the lib's catalogue, that a music sup may at some point choose to use in something like 'Ancient Aliens' - or are you talking specific projects, for, let's say, a cue you wrote that will be used as the opening credits in "xyz" on NBC? Because there is a difference there, and the former was really what I was referring to.

Cheers.


----------



## RiffWraith

adriancook @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> First Jeffrey tries to destroy all British oboists in what can only be described as his personal and total vendetta,



:x 

BTW - I got that piece done by a pro player. $100, recorded. Not $420. :roll:


----------



## MichaelL

RiffWraith @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> Are we talking a bunch of cues you wrote, which were added to the lib's catalogue, that a music sup may at some point choose to use in something like 'Ancient Aliens' - or are you talking specific projects, for, let's say, a cue you wrote that will be used as the .



My question would be, why are you focusing on crap TV, as if it's the only place that library music get's used?


----------



## Stephen Rees

MichaelL @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> RiffWraith @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we talking a bunch of cues you wrote, which were added to the lib's catalogue, that a music sup may at some point choose to use in something like 'Ancient Aliens' - or are you talking specific projects, for, let's say, a cue you wrote that will be used as the .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My question would be, why are you focusing on crap TV, as if it's the only place that library music get's used?
Click to expand...


Quite. My music has been heard in 'Keeping Up With The Kardashians' I'll have you know Jeffrey


----------



## MichaelL

Stephen Rees @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> Quite. My music has been heard in 'Keeping Up With The Kardashians' I'll have you know Jeffrey



And some people say that they don't get British humor! :lol:


----------



## Allegro

Stephen Rees @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> Allegro @ Tue Jun 03 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much 'acceptable' can a sample library track be and how much real recordings do they prefer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just speaking about orchestral music, my experience has been that it is perfectly acceptable (even 'expected') that the music you present to libraries will be sampled. They won't expect you to pay for orchestral sessions yourself.
> 
> If they want to record for real, they will pay for it.
Click to expand...


Thanks so much for these helpful posts. From high tier libraries, I definitely meant top of the line (Extreme, KPM level of exclusive libraries that mostly deal with trailer music and TSFH class of music libraries, that pay upfront and are really really hard to get in)

Mid-tier libraries are comparatively easy to get in anyway, and considering the the prices there, one would definitely 'expect' sample library music acceptance. Which brings us to another point that how can one categorize these libraries and know which ones to work more for. I've recently been accepted into some libraries like Music Dealers, Pump Audio, Jingle Punks, AudioSparx, Which is nothing special I guess? I have a feeling that they accept almost everything sent to them unless its really trashy eg. out of key or something? Are these NF libraries mentioned above in the similar category of quality (more interested in the quality of clients).


----------



## MichaelL

Allegro @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> Mid-tier libraries are comparatively easy to get in anyway, and considering the the prices there, one would definitely 'expect' sample library music acceptance. Which brings us to another point that how can one categorize these libraries and know which ones to work more for. I've recently been accepted into some libraries like Music Dealers, Pump Audio, Jingle Punks, AudioSparx, Which is nothing special I guess? I have a feeling that they accept almost everything sent to them unless its really trashy eg. out of key or something? Are these NF libraries mentioned above in the similar category of quality (more interested in the quality of clients).



You've said /asked a lot there, and mentioned libraries the cover several different business models. What do you mean by NF?


----------



## Allegro

MichaelL @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> You've said /asked a lot there, and mentioned libraries the cover several different business models. What do you mean by NF?


Oh I meant NE. I basically mixed NE and RF :D


----------



## RiffWraith

MichaelL @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> RiffWraith @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we talking a bunch of cues you wrote, which were added to the lib's catalogue, that a music sup may at some point choose to use in something like 'Ancient Aliens' - or are you talking specific projects, for, let's say, a cue you wrote that will be used as the .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My question would be, why are you focusing on crap TV, as if it's the only place that library music get's used?
Click to expand...


It's not what I am focusing on; it just so happen that's where much of my music gets placed. Not all, but a good deal.

And Stephen - can you please not try so hard to make me jealous??? I am practically in tears here.... :(


----------



## MichaelL

Allegro @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> MichaelL @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've said /asked a lot there, and mentioned libraries the cover several different business models. What do you mean by NF?
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I meant NE. I basically mixed NE and RF :D
Click to expand...



No. NE and RF libraries do not have the same quality of client as top tier exclusives.

Many NE libraries are focused on gratis/blanket license deals that result in placements on cable shows like Honey Boo, Duck Dynasty, Keeping up with the Kardashians, etc. 

RF libraries, to a high degree serve non-broadcast clients for everything from ring tones and youtube videos to corporate videos.


----------



## MichaelL

RiffWraith @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> [
> And Stephen - can you please not try so hard to make me jealous??? I am practically in tears here.... :(




Score: British Humor 1 and American Humor 1.

The ball is in play...... 

Where is Howard Cosell when you need him? Oops, just dated myself.
Make that Bob Costas.


----------



## Allegro

MichaelL @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> Keeping up with the Kardashians, etc.


I see what you did there :D


----------



## MichaelL

Allegro @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> MichaelL @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keeping up with the Kardashians, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> I see what you did there :D
Click to expand...


???? good explain it to me then.


----------



## Stephen Rees

RiffWraith @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> And Stephen - can you please not try so hard to make me jealous??? I am practically in tears here.... :(



Sorry. To foster better friendly Anglo/US relations I respectfully withdraw my 'Keeping Up With Kardashians' comment. Please remove all my references to that show, and replace it with 'Britain's Youngest Boozers'.


----------



## RiffWraith

Stephen Rees @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> RiffWraith @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Stephen - can you please not try so hard to make me jealous??? I am practically in tears here.... :(
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry. To foster better friendly Anglo/US relations I respectfully withdraw my 'Keeping Up With Kardashians' comment. Please remove all my references to that show, and replace it with 'Britain's Youngest Boozers'.
Click to expand...


You mean - you have cues in that show too???? :( :( :( 

:lol:


----------



## MichaelL

RiffWraith @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> Stephen Rees @ Thu Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RiffWraith @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Stephen - can you please not try so hard to make me jealous??? I am practically in tears here.... :(
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry. To foster better friendly Anglo/US relations I respectfully withdraw my 'Keeping Up With Kardashians' comment. Please remove all my references to that show, and replace it with 'Britain's Youngest Boozers'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean - you have cues in that show too???? :( :( :(
> 
> :lol:
Click to expand...


Score: British Humor 2 / American Humor 2

Could be going into overtime. Stephen could win it with a well placed Monty Python reference. Riff could do the same with a well place Colbert or SNL quote.


----------



## AC986

RiffWraith @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> adriancook @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> 
> 
> 
> First Jeffrey tries to destroy all British oboists in what can only be described as his personal and total vendetta,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :x
> 
> BTW - I got that piece done by a pro player. $100, recorded. Not $420. :roll:
Click to expand...


I'd have done it for $75. :mrgreen:


----------



## MichaelL

adriancook @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> RiffWraith @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> adriancook @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> 
> 
> 
> First Jeffrey tries to destroy all British oboists in what can only be described as his personal and total vendetta,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :x
> 
> BTW - I got that piece done by a pro player. $100, recorded. Not $420. :roll:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd have done it for $75. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...


Late attack. They're ganging up on Riff. I didn't see that coming. :shock:


----------



## Daryl

RiffWraith @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> Ok, I am back - had to run before. Please accept my apologies if I cam across as a bit of a dick; if we were in person discussing this over a beer, it wouldn't have come across that way, and we'd all be laughing right about now.


Fair enough. Although as previously noted in other threads I wouldn't be drinking beer. :lol: 


RiffWraith @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> Daryl @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> 
> 
> 
> FYI, my last 3 library albums for KPM had the following musician numbers; 47, 90, 39.
> 
> D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we talking a bunch of cues you wrote, which were added to the lib's catalogue, that a music sup may at some point choose to use in something like 'Ancient Aliens' - or are you talking specific projects, for, let's say, a cue you wrote that will be used as the opening credits in "xyz" on NBC? Because there is a difference there, and the former was really what I was referring to.
> 
> Cheers.
Click to expand...

I don't ever just write something that gets added to the lib's catalogue. I write 15-17 tracks for specific albums which are mine, and not shared with other composers (unless I choose to do a co-write), and they are briefed beforehand and can get used for any purpose the library sees fit. I have never done a album with guaranteed use. They are always on spec. Having said that, I've never written a track which has made no money, so I tend to receive a lot of trust for my musical decisions. And yes, they can be used on Ancient Aliens, if someone deems them to be suitable.

D


----------



## vimonster

Interesting continuation to the topic here...

To answer the most recent question from my experience:

Use of samples vs live instruments depends - obviously - a lot on what kind of music you are making. KPM etc will take tracks where nothing is a real instrument in all kinds of genres. Depends on your style. I've never written at Daryl's level (he sounds like one of the very top library producers) but I have tracks with KPM that were more or less guaranteed placements which were made on a battered old computer with sample based instruments. It's how you use what you've got that is most important, most of the time.

And the other interesting thing to me is the way that library is still perceived by so many people. The idea it is just some cable TV placements.. but there's a huge mountain out there. I hesitate to say it because competition can only increase, but library is where major royalties, major placements come from most of the time. Switch on any TV channel, any radio show, any advert, at almost any time, and most of that music is library. From Wimbledon to Keeping up with the Kardashians to a BMW advert.

Now... which library, that's the hard part.

Answering your new question specifically, I wouldn't recommend Pump (as they're Getty, moving to PRO-free and 35% sync, give me a break).


----------



## Daryl

BTW, if anyone is interested, here is a picture from one of my sessions.





D


----------



## benmode

Cool stuff Daryl! Must be well exciting. Can we hear some of your work somewhere?


----------



## AC986

Invite me to one of your sessions Daryl and if I can make it, I will break out the Nikon gear and take some really good ones for you. No flash used btw. Urrghh. Hate flash.


----------



## Daryl

adriancook @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> Invite me to one of your sessions Daryl and if I can make it, I will break out the Nikon gear and take some really good ones for you. No flash used btw. Urrghh. Hate flash.


I don't usually allow photos during sessions (or videoing) because it is noisy and distracting, but on this occasion I relented. Pointlessly, as it turned out. :lol: 

I don't have any UK sessions until September, but I'll let you know when and where, in case you are in town. Having said that, I have a terrible feeling that there is already a video crew booked, so it may yet again be pointless. Unless you want to take pics of me playing the Piano. HAHA.

D


----------



## Allegro

Allegro @ Fri Jun 06 said:


> Allegro @ Fri Jun 06 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vimonster @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting continuation to the topic here...
> And the other interesting thing to me is the way that library is still perceived by so many people. The idea it is just some cable TV placements.. but there's a huge mountain out there. I hesitate to say it because competition can only increase, but library is where major royalties, major placements come from most of the time. Switch on any TV channel, any radio show, any advert, at almost any time, and most of that music is library.
> 
> Now... which library, that's the hard part.
> 
> Answering your new question specifically, I wouldn't recommend Pump (as they're Getty, moving to PRO-free and 35% sync, give me a break).
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand if you or someone decides NOT to reply so openly. But I received this email from a decent Germany based library after getting accepted, but still scratching my head because of certain things. My PRS membership is still pending (Thanks to Jeffrey for guiding me) but I told them that I am already a PRS member so they replied back with this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as a member of a collection society, you can't sell your music royalty free,
> that's why I can't offer you a royalty free deal.
> I offer you a publishing deal for "XXXXXX Music Publishing" where we sell PRO registered music, as I wrote before mainly for TV productions (that are covered through royalties, therefore there's no license fee to be paid).
> Everything else (not covered by royalty payments) has to be licensed through our web shop...............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Question: As soon as I become a member of a PRO, publishers can't sell my music as royalty free?
Let's say I have a track that is getting royalties from another publisher, I can't sell it through any other publisher as a royalty-free track? 

Question 2: He then tells me that there's no license fee to be paid. So I will get nothing from the company for licensing/sync etc except the check from my PRO?


----------



## MichaelL

vimonster @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> And the other interesting thing to me is the way that library is still perceived by so many people. The idea it is just some cable TV placements.. but there's a huge mountain out there.



Agreed. There is more to life than cable.

That perception arises out of the focus that many musicians place getting those kinds of placements through one or two libraries that do gratis/blanket licensing deals, many of which involve a lot of cable TV, as well as network.


----------



## MichaelL

Allegro @ Fri Jun 06 said:


> [
> Question: As soon as I become a member of a PRO, publishers can't sell my music as royalty free?
> Let's say I have a track that is getting royalties from another publisher, I can't sell it through any other publisher as a royalty-free track?
> 
> Question 2: He then tells me that there's no license fee to be paid. So I will get nothing from the company for licensing/sync etc except the check from my PRO?




There is royalty free, which is a misnomer. What it generally means is that the buyer pays a one time sync fee, and can use the music again without paying another sync fee. However, if the use is in a broadcast medium that would be subject to royalties, most RF libraries require the buyer to file cue sheets with your PRO.

The library that you are speaking of is a "performance free" library. This is a new business model that IS NOT good for composers.


----------



## AC986

Daryl yes I'll come over one day.

Michael, thanks for the information. Jaap mentioned RF libraries but I forget what they were. While I work for an exclusive library I would like to know what your (or anyone's) recommendation of a good RF library might be.


----------



## MichaelL

Adrian, I'll send you a pm. it might be later today or over the weekend. We're packing to move. PITA, but well worth it.


----------



## AC986

Mucho Appreciato.


----------



## clarkus

Stephen, that's very encouraging - thanks for posting! 

I've got one "in" with an exclusive library in NYC, and they've been very responsive with feedback. It's clear to me that they want me to give them material that's more in line with what they do (i.e. they're helping me get closer to the target / make better cues for them). 

There is an attitude which I was introduced to by friends who are actors & audition frequently for parts. I think it may be applicable here: The folks we are approaching with our music have a problem they are hoping we can solve. They need music of a certain kind, well produced. From that perspective they want to see us succeed. 

If we don't (succeed) it's possible, of course, what we are writing is simply not impressive. But it is equally likely that it's just not what they need, and / or that we are noir paying close enough attention to what their problem is, i.e. what kind of music they need.

Your story of preparing music for this library & then getting in would seem to bear that out.


----------



## Mahlon

clarkus @ Fri Jun 06 said:


> Stephen, that's very encouraging - thanks for posting!
> 
> I've got one "in" with an exclusive library in NYC, and they've been very responsive with feedback. It's clear to me that they want me to give them material that's more in line with what they do (i.e. they're helping me get closer to the target / make better cues for them).
> 
> There is an attitude which I was introduced to by friends who are actors & audition frequently for parts. I think it may be applicable here: The folks we are approaching with our music have a problem they are hoping we can solve. They need music of a certain kind, well produced. From that perspective they want to see us succeed.
> 
> If we don't (succeed) it's possible, of course, what we are writing is simply not impressive. But it is equally likely that it's just not what they need, and / or that we are noir paying close enough attention to what their problem is, i.e. what kind of music they need.
> 
> Your story of preparing music for this library & then getting in would seem to bear that out.



Speaking as an ex-actor, we used to say that the casting director would love, love, love for you to be "the one" so that can stop looking and go home.

Mahlon


----------



## benmode

Amazing amount of info in this thread. Perhaps you guys can offer some advice for a little issue I have...

I've been working on an instrumental 80s glam rock style album haha. I've sent 4 tracks so far to a bunch of libraries, hoping to perhaps get an exclusive lib interested in me finishing the album. 

I got a very quick reply from one of them. I don't think they're one of the top megalibs, and their reply suggested they're up for me just submitting the tracks to them whenever. It's only been a week, but I worry that while waiting to hear from the others, I'm being rude and perhaps losing my opportunity with the lib that did reply. I can't exactly go "Yeah might do, waiting to see if I get a better offer..." so I'm not too sure what I should do.

I'm also not sure what is the best lib to target. Is it smarter to find one that doesn't already have anything in this style? "hey, noticed you don't have any cheesy 80's rock, here's some!" Or is it better to find libraries who already do have music in this style, as that suggests that it's the kind of thing they have some use for?

Cheeeers


----------



## AC986

benmode @ Mon Jun 09 said:


> Amazing amount of info in this thread. Perhaps you guys can offer some advice for a little issue I have...
> 
> I've been working on an instrumental 80s glam rock style album haha. I've sent 4 tracks so far to a bunch of libraries, hoping to perhaps get an exclusive lib interested in me finishing the album.
> 
> I got a very quick reply from one of them. I don't think they're one of the top megalibs, and their reply suggested they're up for me just submitting the tracks to them whenever. It's only been a week, but I worry that while waiting to hear from the others, I'm being rude and perhaps losing my opportunity with the lib that did reply. I can't exactly go "Yeah might do, waiting to see if I get a better offer..." so I'm not too sure what I should do.
> 
> I'm also not sure what is the best lib to target. Is it smarter to find one that doesn't already have anything in this style? "hey, noticed you don't have any cheesy 80's rock, here's some!" Or is it better to find libraries who already do have music in this style, as that suggests that it's the kind of thing they have some use for?
> 
> Cheeeers



If the library is one mentioned here in a good light, I would go with them. You can always go to other libraries in the future. 

I would not over worry about whether there are similar styles because you will never write exactly the same, and if you did then that could be an issue.

Just get started.


----------



## Cruciform

benmode @ Mon Jun 09 said:


> It's only been a week, but I worry that while waiting to hear from the others, I'm being rude and perhaps losing my opportunity with the lib that did reply. I can't exactly go "Yeah might do, waiting to see if I get a better offer..." so I'm not too sure what I should do.



Even if they're not one of the big publishers, are they solid? Do they have a good track record? Do they have a lot of that kind of music in their catalogue - if so, does it get used much or does it all sit there?

If you decide to go with them and you hear from someone else, no biggie. You then write two albums, one for each.


----------



## benmode

Thanks guys. You're right Adrian, I should probably just go with them if they're interested, I'm not really in a position to be picky. And you're right too Cruciform, nothing wrong with two albums  They're called Synctracks. I don't thinkkk they have been mentioned here, not sure where I heard about them :S 

They seem alright to me so far. Do you know of 'em?


----------



## AC986

benmode @ Mon Jun 09 said:


> Thanks guys. You're right Adrian, I should probably just go with them if they're interested, I'm not really in a position to be picky.They're called Synctracks.



Ben you're in London so why not go round to Islington and pay them a visit?

Just write tracks and send them into different outlets. That's really what a library is right? An outlet that is there to make money. It's not rocket science and don't over - think. Just get on with it and as I mentioned to you before, you will do well with your sound and treat it like a business.


----------



## benmode

Ok ok ok I shall! Haha. Thanks Adrian.


----------



## clarkus

Stephen Rees, thank you for the link the Extreme Music. The specificity is much appreciated, i.e. what you consider a good library, as there are scads of libraries out there. 

I'm building up a personal "Hit list" that I will be approaching, after about 6 months of building up a collection of cues concentrating on dark drama and investigative cues I have other music, too, but as I have an in with a library in NY that has clients for this sort of thing, it's spurred me to specialize.

I wondered if there are other libraries you could recommend - even (or especially) - if they are a bit picky.

I've got a track record as a composer, have written orchestral music & so on, but no track record yet in the commercial world. Working to change that.

Thanks!


----------



## Stephen Rees

Hi Clarkus,

I don't have a recommended list. My experiences with each library I've worked with are unique to me, and will not automatically translate to other composers' work and other styles.

In the UK we have a list of libraries here.....

http://www.prsformusic.com/users/productionmusic/libraries/Pages/default.aspx (http://www.prsformusic.com/users/produc ... fault.aspx)

I regularly go through this list to see who is out there, and to assess whether I might like to approach them. Although UK based many of the global players are mentioned here. Perhaps there is an equivalent list maintained somewhere for US based libraries?

Hope that is of some help.

Stephen


----------



## clarkus

I'm bookmarking. Thanks for the lead! Much appreciated.


----------



## Wibben

Very interesting thread, this. As I'm completely new to all this, I wonder; how do you go about "approaching" a library? What is the accepted norm? Do you all just send a link with your "portfolio" by mail, or a spotify-link and say "Hey! Here's my tracks!"? 
I guess for the big libraries you have to know someone or be "someone" to get in 

Sorry if I'm n00b-ing up the thread


----------



## Stephen Rees

When looking at a new library, I..........

1). Check their website to see if they invite new composer demo submissions. If they do, follow any instructions there exactly.

2). If there is no indication on their website about whether they welcome demos from new composers, I send an introductory email or make a phone call asking if they would welcome demo material from me.

That's it really. Whether that is the accepted norm I don't know, but that's just what I do 

(And you don't have to 'know' or 'be' someone to get in - see earlier in the thread when the subject of 'meritocracy' came up).


----------



## Cruciform

Stephen Rees @ Fri Jul 04 said:


> In the UK we have a list of libraries here.....
> 
> http://www.prsformusic.com/users/productionmusic/libraries/Pages/default.aspx (http://www.prsformusic.com/users/produc ... fault.aspx)
> 
> I regularly go through this list to see who is out there, and to assess whether I might like to approach them. Although UK based many of the global players are mentioned here. Perhaps there is an equivalent list maintained somewhere for US based libraries?



Don't know if it's already been posted in this thread but the PMA have a list:
http://pmamusic.com/member-libraries/


----------



## Harry

MichaelL @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> NE and RF libraries do not have the same quality of client as top tier exclusives.



Excuse my stupid question but what is a "NE" and "RF" library?


----------



## Madrigal

> Excuse my stupid question but what is a "NE" and "RF" library?



Non-exclusive / Royalty Free


----------



## AC986

Harry @ Fri Feb 13 said:


> MichaelL @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> 
> 
> 
> NE and RF libraries do not have the same quality of client as top tier exclusives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse my stupid question but what is a "NE" and "RF" library?
Click to expand...


Non Exclusive and Royalty Free.


----------



## doctornine

Folks, I happened to be in touch with a library I do stuff for occasionally just this week.

These days they seem to be deluged by composers looking to "get into library"……..

The market place these days is pretty flooded, just saying….


----------



## AC986

I noticed that too Jonathan just lately.

Computers huh? :lol:


----------



## RiffWraith

doctornine @ Fri Feb 13 said:


> Folks, I happened to be in touch with a library I do stuff for occasionally just this week.
> 
> These days they seem to be deluged by composers looking to "get into library"……..
> 
> The market place these days is pretty flooded, just saying….



_Pretty_ flooded? Extremely OVER-flooded is more like it. 

Everyone has a sequencer +
everyone has sample libraries +
everyone thinks they are a composer =
100,000s of new tracks every year.


----------



## AC986

RiffWraith @ Fri Feb 13 said:


> everyone thinks they are a composer =



Well _you_ certainly do!










:mrgreen:


----------



## RiffWraith

adriancook @ Fri Feb 13 said:


> RiffWraith @ Fri Feb 13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> everyone thinks they are a composer =
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well _you_ certainly do!
> :mrgreen:
Click to expand...


Hey - ignorance is bliss, right? :lol:


----------



## AC986

RiffWraith @ Fri Feb 13 said:


> adriancook @ Fri Feb 13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RiffWraith @ Fri Feb 13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> everyone thinks they are a composer =
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well _you_ certainly do!
> :mrgreen:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey - ignorance is bliss, right? :lol:
Click to expand...


Yeah….apparently Geoff!


----------



## RiffWraith

adriancook @ Fri Feb 13 said:


> Geoff!



:twisted:


----------



## AC986

RiffWraith @ Fri Feb 13 said:


> adriancook @ Fri Feb 13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geoff!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :twisted:
Click to expand...


I never said that. I NEVER SAID THAT!!!!

Oh I did.

:shock:


----------



## AC986

I guarantee the next question will be 'what's the difference between non exclusive and royalty free?'


----------



## Stiltzkin

Just to throw off adrian:

Why shouldn't you eat yellow snow?


----------



## Harry

adriancook @ Fri Feb 13 said:


> I guarantee the next question will be 'what's the difference between non exclusive and royalty free?'


A cliquey in-joke at a noob's expense. Nice one.


----------



## Daryl

Harry @ Sat Feb 14 said:


> adriancook @ Fri Feb 13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guarantee the next question will be 'what's the difference between non exclusive and royalty free?'
> 
> 
> 
> A cliquey in-joke at a noob's expense. Nice one.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry about it. If you ask the question "what is a Royalty free library", you'll get quite a few answers, none of which are right, because there is no right answer in terms of common practice. Or all of them will be right. It all depends on your perspective.

D


----------



## kclements

Just read through this whole (!) thread after seeing the link somewhere else. Great info here. Thanks so much for the info.

Cheers
kc


----------



## Desire Inspires

Is it still possible to get paid from the music libraries?

I noticed that he differentiated between music licensing companies and music libraries. 

So you wouldn't get upfront money from a licensing company, but you should always get upfront money from a music library.


----------



## rJames

Desire Inspires said:


> Is it still possible to get paid from the music libraries?
> 
> I noticed that he differentiated between music licensing companies and music libraries.
> 
> So you wouldn't get upfront money from a licensing company, but you should always get upfront money from a music library.



Desire Inspires, I didn't watch your video but I will disagree with the blanket statement, "you should always get upfront money from a music library."
I have been offered money up front or share the profits on all of my work. I believe in my work and so I chose to share in the profits while making nothing up front. (I"m sure some libs offer both) I've made wa-a-a-y more money by sharing than I would have by doing strictly work for hire.
On the first album I worked on I would have made $60K on WFH. In the first year I made $100K and it is still selling. (12 years later) Granted that is my best selling work but I will always choose sharing profits. I asked myself, "why are they willing to pay me for my cues?" Answer, cause they will make more in the long run.


----------



## Desire Inspires

rJames said:


> Desire Inspires, I didn't watch your video but I will disagree with the blanket statement, "you should always get upfront money from a music library."
> I have been offered money up front or share the profits on all of my work. I believe in my work and so I chose to share in the profits while making nothing up front. (I"m sure some libs offer both) I've made wa-a-a-y more money by sharing than I would have by doing strictly work for hire.
> On the first album I worked on I would have made $60K on WFH. In the first year I made $100K and it is still selling. (12 years later) Granted that is my best selling work but I will always choose sharing profits. I asked myself, "why are they willing to pay me for my cues?" Answer, cause they will make more in the long run.



Shout out to John Fulford for making the video!

For you, what factors come into play when deciding whether to take upfront money or to share in the profits?


----------



## rJames

Desire Inspires said:


> Shout out to John Fulford for making the video!
> 
> For you, what factors come into play when deciding whether to take upfront money or to share in the profits?


Right, every circumstance would be different. But it seems like if someone is willling to buy you out, they are saying , I'll make more than this outlay if I own it. 
I think you'll probably find that in most cases you won't have a choice. Choice to keep some ownership is declining. 
I think it's only the older libraries that will allow you to share. I think it's more fair but it creates paperwork and takes away profit so most libs don't give you a choice. The important thing in the lib business is that the composer needs to have a good self evaluation gene. Depends on where it's going to license. Big license fee would be a good time to share. One license is more than your upfront fee (depending on the fee of course). 
I don't think I have a good answer is the short answer. I guess the other factor is , can you afford to wait?


----------



## Desire Inspires

rJames said:


> Right, every circumstance would be different. But it seems like if someone is willling to buy you out, they are saying , I'll make more than this outlay if I own it.
> I think you'll probably find that in most cases you won't have a choice. Choice to keep some ownership is declining.
> I think it's only the older libraries that will allow you to share. I think it's more fair but it creates paperwork and takes away profit so most libs don't give you a choice. The important thing in the lib business is that the composer needs to have a good self evaluation gene. Depends on where it's going to license. Big license fee would be a good time to share. One license is more than your upfront fee (depending on the fee of course).
> I don't think I have a good answer is the short answer. I guess the other factor is , can you afford to wait?



So the key would be to diversify, hedge your bets? Kinda like investing.


----------



## JohnG

rJames said:


> I believe in my work and so I chose to share in the profits while making nothing up front. (I"m sure some libs offer both) I've made wa-a-a-y more money by sharing than I would have by doing strictly work for hire.



I agree. I labour mightily over these kinds of cues, from the composition to the last bit of orchestration, and I love being able to enjoy the fruits of that labour over time.


----------

