One of our readers, Ev, came up with the suggestion to have a section devoted to newbie questions regarding music libraries, music licensing, copyright, music publishing etc. There a lot of experienced people on this site and many are happy to share their wisdom. So, if you are a newbie (or not), and have a question, try leaving it here.
Of course many questions have already been answered here. First try searching in the search bar in the upper right hand corner. Also Google is your friend! I have found one of the best ways to search a site is use site specific criteria at Google’s web site. In other words, to search for a specific keyword, say “contracts”, type it in at Google like this “contracts site:musiclibraryreport.com”. Do not use the quotes.
If you still can’t find your answer then leave a comment here and someone will most likely come to your rescue!
Hey guys,
What do you think about getting some of your non-exclusive tracks into the “lease” (non-exclusive) beat market for young and aspiring artists? Things like SoundClick. I am talking about Hip Hop.
You think it will create a conflict with libraries that have the same tracks, what do you think?
It can be very rewarding, think about this for a minute:
If you sell 50 tracks a month, for 30$ a track, its 1500$ extra per month.
Thanks!
I tried that a while back: it isn’t worth it to me. The problem was that most people wanted free beats to rap over. They said things like “I’m giving you promotion by rapping over your beats”. I have been more successful from licensing through music libraries.
I see.
Thanks.
I had a song on Last Call with Carson Daily on NBC last night! It was a background track and it played (very quietly) for about 45 seconds.
I’ve heard that network placements can pay a lot more than cable placements. I know I shouldn’t dwell on this placement and instead I should just keep writing more cues but I was wondering if anybody personally had a similar placement and could give me some insight as to whether or not it could be a decent payout as far as back-end royalties go?
It really depends on a lot of factors, so its almost impossible to know what it will pay unless you’ve had something on that exact show before. Even then its hard to estimate payment. I’ve had a lot of network placements on the same shows over and over again and pay rates have been all over the map for me.
As a total guess, I would say it will pay between $2-10 per second. Maybe more, but I wouldn’t expect more than that since last call comes on pretty late. Something that I have noticed is that it seems like I usually get a higher per second rate on the longer cues. With BMI anyways… ASCAP and SESAC I have no clue about. So at 45 seconds you will probably be in the higher pay range.
I believe that you’ll find the answer, or something close to it, in Michael Nicholas’ recently published guide book.
https://musiclibraryreport.com/blog/the-independent-artists-guide-to-pricing-music-2/
Nhyne, you will definitely make more money from the NBC placement than you will from a similar cable TV placement. I also have a placement on the Last Call show and that payment dwarfs most other placements that I have. By the way, congratulations!
Cool, I have had four placements on Last Call the last few months.
Congrats Art. You will be pleasantly surprised once those royalties kick in
Good questions.
As far as I know (and not at all an expert here):
You CAN get paid for licensing a cover because you own the MASTER even though you don’t own the composition. See longer para. below.
Yes, all back-end goes to the original songwriter(s) and publisher(s).
On the permission side, I’m not sure how it works. If you were going to release the song on physical media such as CD, you would need to get a compulsory mechanical license and pay the statuatory rate (9.1 cents, I think) per CD. But for film/TV broadcast, I don’t know. Libraries that pitch covers should know so if you get contacted by one after a forward, you can ask. Also, you could call The Harry Fox Agency and see what they say. It’s their area of expertise. It might be simply that any master/sync agreement presented to the end user by the library has to be signed by both you as the master owner (or the library who has your POA there) and the original publisher as composition copyright holder and license fees split accordingly 50/50 (or other negotiated).
Don’t take anything here as Gospel as I have never done a cover.
🙂
In Ireland and I assume the UK as well, you are
entitled to a sync fee as the master owner for a cover. Of course
permission has to be granted by the copyright holder and additional
fees would be due. This would normally come up on a once off basis for
Film/Tv/Advertising. How a library would handle this is I assume
that they have pre cleared or in fact control the copyright side.
Covers!
I just submitted two cover songs for a Taxi listing asking for covers.
But I have no idea of how it works legally.
Can I get paid for licensing a cover-song?
Do I have to get permission to use the song?
All the backend goes to the writer, right?
I’ve had about 25 different placements this years according to my TuneSat but my ASCAP account only shows 5 cue sheets. I noticed that the January 9th distribution date will be paying writers for April, May, and June. I had 10 different placements in these three months. Should I expect these cue sheets to pop up in my ASCAP just before January 9th? Also, one of the placements (two episodes) is a primetime reality show on VH1 that had many reruns so I’m optimistic about the back-end royalties (although this is one of the cue sheets that has not popped up in my ASCAP yet). Would love your thoughts on this.
Thanks!
Matt
I’ve gotten paid by ASCAP for placements without cue sheets (unless ASCAP doesn’t list every cue sheet that comes in).
>one of the placements (two episodes) is a primetime reality show on VH1 that had many reruns so I’m optimistic about the back-end royalties<
FWIW- for a primetime show rerun at night (1:00AM-6:59AM) on VH1, a background placement played for 12 seconds pays $0.53(see http://www.guidetopricingmusic.com).
I have a friend that had a very similar placement and got over $1k per episode…
Filing cue sheets is the responsibility of the production company. Sometimes production companies do not file the cue sheets in a timely manner, and sometimes not at all. That’s why tunesat says that 80% percent music goes undetected or unreported.
Unless the production company has some skin in the game, like a publishing interest, cue sheets aren’t always a priority.
Check with the library, if you don’t get paid in January. They have an interest in getting paid too. Let them handle it. Production companies don’t always like it when composers call them to hound them about cue sheets.
Awesome, thank you Michael! If it doesn’t show up in ASCAP then they didn’t file the cue sheet, right?
” I’ve signed a LOT of music to exclusive libraries who have made me little to no money, and since I do this for a living now I am a little bit skittish towards any exclusive library that isn’t willing to pay me up front for exclusive rights.”
I hear that a lot, and I’ve experienced it, as well. I’ve never written for an exclusive that didn’t pay upfront.
Congrats on making the move to full-time writer.
All the best,
Michael
You are totally right Michael.
I myself don’t want to sign exclusive deals without up-front money.
But what about an exclusive library that own a post production studio that work with major network shows? Maybe here is OK to make an exception and sign without up-front money. What you guys think?
mUSIC.
There’s an inference that your music would make it into the major network shows, because the library owns a post production studio that works with major network shows. But, is there a guarantee that your music will get into any of these shows? Do you get any sync fees?
What about publishing?
I don’t know the library that you are referring to, but that kind of deal is fraught with the potential for abuse. Get an attorney to check it out, and to advise you regarding what you’re giving up, and what you may or may not be getting in return.
Yes, sync fees.
No publishing, only writers.
I retain the copyright.
But I don’t have any guarantee, that’s why I am asking, if you think this kind of library have a potential for more placements, because the library own a post production house.
How do you retain the copyright if it’s an exclusive library? Isn’t it usually assigned to the company for an exclusive deal?
No, I don’t transfer my copyright to them, but I cant use it elsewhere, only with them, the track is exclusive to them for a period of time.
I can see how this is a tough decision for you. Good luck with it…
Yes, thanks man.
Go for it. Sign the deal.
Ya…why not?
Thanks for the advice.
What about you Synth, with which model you had more success? and I am not talking about Megan fox 🙂
hey mUSIC, I have had success with non-exclusive libraries so far. But I have recently signed some tracks exclusively. I hope to get a good 50 tracks each into two exclusive libraries I just signed to.
I guess my way of doing things is different from many composers. Most try to sign their music exclusively first. They then take any rejected tracks and sign them to non-exclusive libraries. I do the complete opposite. I get my music placed with the non-exclusive companies first and then pitch any rejected tracks to exclusive libraries.
The important thing is that you keep making music, keep sending it out, nad keep making deals. You will not be successful by being scared to sign deals. Be vigilant, stay hungry, and look out for your own best interests!
Thanks Synth!
I am like you, more with the non-exclusive model.
Iv’e made a little list with what I think is the pros and cons with each model:
Exclusive:
Pros:
1-International royalties, sub-publishers.
2-Up front money or Sync fees, less gratis blanket deals.
3-Networks placements, more royalties.
4-Copyright management.
Cons:
1-Limit your opportunities per track, “eggs in one basket”.
2-Transfer of copyright, most of the time.
3-Network placements: Little to no replays of programs.
Non-Exclusive:
Pros:
1-Can target different sectors of the market with several libraries per track, more opportunities. (royalty free, TV placements, ads)
2-Keeping your copyright.
3-A lot of replays in cable placements.
Cons:
1-A supervisor can get the same track twice or more.
2-Less international royalties, less sub-publishers.
3-Cable royalties are much less then networks.
4-Hard to track the use, and managing copyright.
Tell me what you think, and if you like to add more.
mUSIC.
Watermarking.
Barbie raised this issue in an earlier post, and it got my head spinning with questions.
1. What is the holdup on this technology? It seems like Publishers and Exclusive’s, as well as the PRO’s, would be pushing very hard for this.
2. Who will be assigned the responsibility to use this technology in the end? Will it be the PRO’s, libraries, broadcasters, or the writers themselves?
3. Will every library become exclusive due to the technology? And if so, will it make it harder or easier to get into these libraries as a writer?
4. What will happen to all of the “non-watermarked” tracks that are already out there?
Just a few questions off of the top of my head.
I am trying to prepare for this scenario because it seems inevitable that the technology is coming, but when?
Hi JD,
1) The technology is already in use. One of the exclusives that I write for is already fingerprinting all of their new content AND the already existing content.
It would be very difficult to watermark exiting content, but it’s very easy to take a fingerprint (digital analysis) of existing content. Companies like tunesat do this.
SESAC currently accepts third party data (like tunesat) in lieu of cue sheets. ASCAP and BMI have their own versions, but right now they primarily use it for radio. I am switching from ASCAP to BMI. I have been told by BMI that if there is a discrepancy between my statement and third party data, they will look at the third party data to try to resolve the situation.
2) Everybody. Libraries will use it to identify their content. PROs will use it instead of cue sheets. Writers will use it to make sure that all of their performances are getting credited. (Art already uses tunesat).
3) No…but. I don’t see issues with royalty free libraries, if you retain the publishing to your music. In that scenario, although you have many distributors, there is only one publisher..you. BUT…this will potentially end the practice of retitling, unless some new technology arises to differentiate between the same track in library A and library B.
4) Fingerprinting. You cannot go back and watermark existing content without major expense compared to fingerprinting. Consequently, IMO watermarking may not become the dominant technology. As far as backend money goes, old tracks that are not fingerprinted, would theoretically just fall through the cracks, unless someone files a cue sheets. But..when it’s no longer necessary to file cue sheets, few people will do it because it’s a PITA. As I said above, one of the exclusives that I write for is already fingerprinting everything –old and new.
Big picture: the business model most likely to be affected will be the retitling model. Whether that will end retitling, or be a temporary glitch until new technology arrives, who knows? How long a temporary glitch might last –who knows?
All libraries are not created equally. You need to thoroughly understand the different business models….exclusives, retitling (licensing agents) and royalty free.
Exclusives, like Megatrax for the most part have a vastly different clientele than royalty free libraries like AudioSparx and Music Loops. The networks generally have the entire catalogs of exclusives at their fingertips,and searchable using Soundminer software. They call up what they want instantly and it’s linked to cue sheet software. Done. It is a very rare occurrence for a network to search a royalty free library. That’s not how their “system” operates. That, however, does not mean that an independent production company, producing broadcast shows, won’t. But, buy and large, royalty free clients are non-broadcast users, where there is no backend PRO money.
I compare your catalog to an investment portfolio. Where you put your tracks, depends on your toleration for risk, AND your opportunities. It has always been harder to get into exclusive libraries. I don’t think that fingerprinting/watermarking will make it any harder.
If the retitle model ends that could be a double-edge sword, good and bad. Some of those libraries will survive and continue as exclusives. What will happen to your content already in those libraries? In theory, it’s tainted. Who gets to keep it, Jingle Punks or Crucial or AudioSocket? But what if you’ve already put the same tracks in half a dozen royalty free libraries? AND, what if those tracks are already being used in different broadcast shows, who gets the royalties in the future..the retitling library the used to have the track, or the new exclusive library the now OWNS the track. As you can gather from the last bit of confusion, it will be a mess that no-one, including the PROs wants to deal with. However, the good side of the sword is that there will potentially be a few more exclusive libraries, which could result in more opportunities for composers.
BTW…”getting into a library” is only 1% of the battle. Getting someone to actually use, or buy,
your music is the other 99%. There are no guarantees with any of the models.
I hope I answered a few of your questions. I’m sure there are other opinions.
All the best,
Michael
Edit: Ron Mendelsohn of Megatrax sees another scenario (I apologize Ron, if I get this wrong) where the some of the retiling libraries enter the lower end of the market, and compete in the royalty free libraries. I see that as a possibility, especially for tracks that are already in several RF libraries. On another note: one small exclusive that I’m in has started selling older content royalty free.
As always MichaelL, a very thorough and thought out post! Thank you.
I’m posting this prematurely. I need to absorb this and then certainly pick your brain more on some parts of this. 🙂
“BTW…”getting into a library” is only 1% of the battle. Getting someone to actually use, or buy,
your music is the other 99%. There are no guarantees with any of the models.”
Ahhh yes, but you have to get in to get placed. I’m on the “baby steps plan”. 🙂
Hey Michael, Why the switch to BMI? Is it because of them looking into differences between statements and third party? or do you feel they are better overall?
Hi euca,
I do not think that BMI is better “overall” than ASCAP. They are both good at what they do, but there are differences. After a lot of research, I determined the BMI would pay more for my tracks, which consist of theme music and BG cues that air mostly during non-primetime day parts, like Saturday and Sunday mornings. As far as I can tell, BMI pays about $1.00 per minute for theme music in those slots, while ASCAP only pays $.60. There’s also a similar difference in the payout for BG cues. They may be more alike during primetime or on cable, I don’t know. I’ll know next June if I made the right choice.
There is nothing wrong with ASCAP. I still have an ASCAP publishing company, in addition to two BMI publishing companies (in the works). It should be noted, however, that I am ONLY talking about instrumental music. Songs with vocals/lyrics are a different ball of wax, in which I’m not involved.
Best,
Michael
PS. Now I’m trying to finish some Xmas music before the 4th of July.
BTW, if you want to look for evidence of my analysis (in my reply to JD), think of the non-exclusives that are now going exclusive, AND think of Crucial (non-exclusive) partnering with Rumblefish (royalty free).
If I had a crystal ball, I think you might see hybrids where a library has an exclusive catalog AND a royalty free catalog.
@Michael:
You are correct,its already happening,@audiosparx, and scorekeepers
now is only accepting material that is deemed exclusive moving forward
if you are in their DB as a writer.
Sorry, but that is incorrect. I just uploaded a cue to Scorekeepers yesterday as a writer in their DB and I still had to designate my choice of uploading to their exclusive folder or “non”-exclusive folder.
Yeah, Pat is right. Scorekeepers is still signing non-exclusive tracks. I just signed a track with them non-exclusively about a week or two ago.
I also don’t think we should look at a few non-exclusive libraries adding an exclusive “option” as a sign that non-exclusive libraries are on the verge of disappearing or as a harbinger of any sorts. If a library is adding an exclusive option, then IMO that is just a way for them to cover their butts just in case. If a non-exclusive library fully converts to exclusive status then that is just a business decision based on where they THINK things are going.
In all honesty, nobody really knows what is going to happen. I know that there is a lot of talk going on but when I look at the actual ACTIONS taking place “behind the scenes” it seems to be a different story. For everything thing I have *heard* that supports a doomsday scenario for the non-exclusive libraries, I can give evidence of things I have actually *seen* that totally refutes it.
So what the heck is going on? And what is ACTUALLY going to happen? Who knows. One thing I can say for certain: When I look at my BMI statements, all of the growth in actual $$$ is coming from my non-exclusive cues in non-exclusive libraries.
-Steve
“In all honesty, nobody really knows what is going to happen.”
Exactly. But, the fact that libraries are repositioning themselves and making strategic alignments suggests that it is a matter of concern to them. It could be years before the PROs fully embrace fingerprint/watermark detection in lieu of cue sheets. Old habits die hard.
But… from a legal perspective, IF and when things change, figuring out who owns what, and or who controls what, is going to be, as lawyers lie to say, a quagmire.
If I was running a library right now, I would be looking to make everything as clean and clear as possible: A) because I would want to own the catalog, so that it is an asset, and B) to avoid conflict IF, and when, technology makes retitling unworkable.
I appreciate the fact that your BMI income is increasing in the non-exclusive sector. But, IF and/or when things change, your catalog could be severely compromised. That’s not because
retitling is a bad evil thing that people don’t like. It is because technology may do to retitling what cars did for buggy whips. On the other hand technology might save the day for retitling.
I’m curious –Steve– are you lumping all non-exclusives together, i.e., the licensing agent model and the royalty free model? They really are different in that you can retain publishing with RF libraries.
I think that safest approach is to treat non-exclusives (I don’t mean RF) as if they are exclusive. I know that Matt does that. So does John Mazzei. One of the writers that works with me does also.
@Pat, I don’t know about Scorekeepers, but I’d check with Barbie to find out if AS is going exclusive only. I know they like writers to choose that option, but it seems counterintuitive that they would require it.
_Michael
Edit: Pat I see that you clarified.
PS. Steve — I never subscribe to doomsday scenarios. I always see change as opportunity.
Hi Michael,
Not really concerned about it to tell you the truth. I’ll just concentrate on writing for now and if they decide to go that way I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it.
Sorry MichaelL I gotta do this-” is going to be, as lawyers lie to say, a quagmire.” Simple typo or possibly a freudian slip? LOL!
“I’m curious –Steve– are you lumping all non-exclusives together, i.e., the licensing agent model and the royalty free model? They really are different in that you can retain publishing with RF libraries.”
No. I’m talking about non-exclusive libraries that focus on broadcast placements, not RF.
“I appreciate the fact that your BMI income is increasing in the non-exclusive sector. But, IF and/or when things change, your catalog could be severely compromised. That’s not because
retitling is a bad evil thing that people don’t like. It is because technology may do to retitling what cars did for buggy whips. On the other hand technology might save the day for retitling.”
Well, I don’t shotgun every piece of music I write to every non-exclusive library under the sun. So even if something were to happen that could compromise peoples catalogs, mine wouldn’t be too severely affected unless all of the sudden everybody stopped using non-exclusive libraries all together.
But I really don’t see peoples catalogs being compromised at all to be honest. There are a lot of successful libraries and composers who DO shotgun their music out everywhere and I have a hard time believing that the PROs are going to accept a new form of tracking that is going to substantially decrease their income. I would think that they would work those kinds of kinks out before implementing anything. Especially since there are libraries out there who re-title a re-title so a production company can share in the publishing… so even if a composer doesn’t personally participate in re-titling, the libraries that they sign with could be re-titling without the composers knowledge. You don’t find out about it until one day a mystery cue with some stupid title like “Circle” shows up in your catalog. So in the worst case scenario where composers would lose money from re-titled tracks you would have composers being punished for doing something they didn’t even do!
I honestly think that the ultimate solution (and only solution IMO) is going to involve some kind of combination of fingerprinting and watermarking where both the composition AND where it came from will be identified. There is just way too much money involved with too many big players to NOT come up with something a little more comprehensive.
“I think that safest approach is to treat non-exclusives (I don’t mean RF) as if they are exclusive. I know that Matt does that. So does John Mazzei. One of the writers that works with me does also.”
Like I said, this practice isn’t really safe either since libraries will re-title a re-title so the production company can collect half (or even all) of the publishing. I’ve seen this done for a major network show that pays big $$$ too btw, so apparently this isn’t just isolated to dinky little cable networks (although I have seen it happen on dinky little cable networks as well). I know Mazz, and I know he writes for one of these libraries. So there is a good chance he will have re-titled tracks even though he doesn’t personally participate in the practice.
I have no problem with exclusive deals or exclusive libraries. I still sign exclusive deals if they pay me up front or come highly recommend from a colleague. However, I mostly sign with non-exclusive libraries these days because (1) all of my non-exclusive libraries are making me more and more money every quarter whereas only ONE exclusive library out of FIVE are making me money (really there are 7 but I just signed with 6 and 7 this year so they don’t count) and (2) its easier to withdraw or do something else with a cue in a non-exclusive contract if its not making me money than it is with an exclusive contract. I’ve signed a LOT of music to exclusive libraries who have made me little to no money, and since I do this for a living now I am a little bit skittish towards any exclusive library that isn’t willing to pay me up front for exclusive rights.
-Steve
Great observations, slideboardouts! Exclusive libraries often retitle songs to split the publishing revenue with themselves and production companies. I have even seen “exclusive” libraries sell their music non-exclusively on multiple websites. Since the music is exclusive, these libraries can sell it to other companies or even give away parts of the publishing.
Some exclusive libraries aren’t even sharing upfront fees. They do blanket licenses, so the opportunity for license/sync fees isn’t even there. This is the worst of both worlds because the composer only gets backend money but does not have ownership of those songs any longer.
I say stick with what works until it doesn’t work anymore. Libraries are too busy spreading fear and panic and composers are eating it up. That group of libraries and composers are making very little money despite their great insight into the future of library music.
Composers need to do what is best for them (this means you). I myself never waste time trying to jump through too many hoops. If a library can’t prove itself to me after a certain amount of time or certain number of songs, I move on!
>>>>> “Libraries are too busy spreading fear and panic and composers are eating it up”
—-
Though for myself personally, I prefer the non-exclusive route for my tracks, I don’t think libraries are telling untruths that there is a real problem. (I know, you didn’t say exactly that, Synth)… We DO know that some networks will no longer deal with non-exclusive libraries. ABC/Disney is one. Libraries like Scorekeepers, Indigi, Audiosparx, and others are creating exclusive branches for good reason– they don’t want to be shut out of these markets.
I’m not convinced that the non-exclusive re-title model will be dead anytime soon. As others have suggested, I think it’s more likely that there will be a split market with lower end placements (e.g. blanket deals for cable BG cues) still getting plenty of non-exclusive action while the higher-end network placements will come much more from exclusive libraries.
I respect the advice to treat every non-exclusive deal as exclusive but to do that you need a decent size catalog or know you are building one (That’s IMHO). If your catalog is smaller, committing to one non-exclusive library per track can be a lot to tougher. I know that if I HAD done that, I wouldn’t have the placements I’ve had to date. And different non-exclusive libraries have different target markets, clients, and marketing methods.
However, if we do put our tracks in multiple re-title libraries, we must be aware of the risk (e.g. if re-title is one day really gone, conflicts, etc) and the possibility that we are “part of the problem” as far as market saturation, prices dropping, and end-user frustration with the library world.
🙂
I might also add that Audiosparx is not requiring exclusive only either. I just upload tracks to them as well though they do point out the advantages in going exclusive should you consider it.
Some very interesting thoughts and discussion on this post. In my opinion the royalty free/Non royalty free, Exclusive/Non exclusive issues are now so cloudy that the only way to deal with things is to deal with each company on a seperate basis in regard to these issues.
>Check out Art’s website and Michael Nicholas’ website.<
Thanks for the mention Michael. I use http://www.studioninelicensing.com for auditioning/licensing music and http://wwww.studionineproductions.com for custom composition work.
MichaelL’s postings always inspire and offer good advice. I would like to add that inspiration is all around us, when it comes to creating music for contemporary productions. If you can hone your observation skills your music may possess a greater lasting power, i.e. a longer shelf life, due to a sensitive or clever interpretation of an event around you.
When you are wondering, “What can I write about today?” please take a look at nature, the ant rolling a morsel uphill; study a neighbor’s repetitive movements or teens tossing a football, a bird fluttering its wings in the garden; or imagine the life after work of the foreign clerk in the 7-11 or at the super market, or write about the chaos a kid experiences in their first game of tag or a pillow fight.
Working with composers is a rewarding experience here at AudioSparx, and occasionally we are lucky enough to know what inspired a particular track. I offer two links for your review from our great UK composer Paint Chips. The first track was written after several recent readings of “The Help” (which also was made into a successful movie about racial tensions in the South); the second track was inspired by a several-hour plane trip seated next to a Monk.
Inspiration is everywhere, and the rewards can be great for composers, libraries, and our clients’ productions:
http://www.audiosparx.com/sa/archive/Dramatic/Romantic-Music/Southern-Orange-Heat/500432
http://www.audiosparx.com/sa/archive/New-Age/Meditation/Tibetan-Monk-Orange/501930
Cheers,
Barbie
http://www.audiosparx.com
You never know what is going to inspire you, that’s for sure. I am very disciplined about my writing and try to write every day. Even if it is just starting a track. You have to strike while the iron is hot.
There is a famous quote by Jimmy Page. He was once asked why he would just sit in the studio not playing anything. He replied ” I’m waiting for the song to come to me”
Sometimes I’ll just be noodling at the keyboard or guitar, and there it is! I also make an attempt to write in a different genre each time. For instance if I have just written a ballad, I’ll try to write something up tempo next…and so on.
You know we are all trying to do something different with the same 12 notes.
I very happy to have discovered this outlet for my music, albeit I started this later in life. Ever time a track of mine is purchased it feels great to realize that out of all the thousands of composers and hundreds of thousands of tracks, they picked mine.
Sometimes it’s inspiration and at other times it’s perspiration.
Inspiration:
On one of my CDs one track was inspired by the end of apartheid, one that was inspired by the village that we lived in at the time, and one that was inspired by the Olympic runner who fell, whose father ran onto the track and helped him finish the race. On another CD one track was inspired by a trip to the Viet Nam war memorial.
Perspiration:
My last library assignment, from an exclusive, was to write a collection of nostalgic tracks…newsreel music of the 1940’s, kitschy sitcom music from the 1950’s and 1960’s,
1950’s horror trailer music etc.
For my TV shows, I’m writing hip-hop, funk, rock, retro sports orchestral music, sentimental acoustic music, gospel…..
I think what Barbie said is very relevant. Library music is not just about writing your favorite music. It helps to think visually. The music is going to be used to accompany something.
So, the more situations that you can visualize, like the ant, or the store clerk, or the game of tag, the more “usable” music you will write.
AND this is key..note that I said “usable” not necessarily listenable. The music needs to function, serve a purpose, set the mood. That’s different from a pop or song that stands alone as an independent work of art. Sometimes they overlap. Clearly many TV shows are now using pop songs as part of the score. That’s cool, but it’s not the traditional definition of
“library music” ..that’s licensed pop songs that were not necessarily written to accompany visuals.
Michael:
“I think what Barbie said is very relevant. Library music is not just about writing your favorite music. It helps to think visually. The music is going to be used to accompany something.
So, the more situations that you can visualize, like the ant, or the store clerk, or the game of tag, the more “usable” music you will write.”
How very true, and I am learning this more and more. For me now,when I get an idea for a track, I first think about how it can be placed, mood, setting etc. It’s a bit of a different mind set for sure.
Not to side track the subject, buT I was wondering Barbie if you listen to new songs as they come in that maybe you think is usable based on what you know is going on at the time (hard to imagine sine you’re dealing with hundreds of uploads all the time) or just periodically check on what composers are uploading as kind of a quality assurance check.
One reason I ask is something I seem to remember seeing where you said clients often look for “new material.” Is there a section for “new” uploads they go to?
Thanks
Pat, almost everyone here listens to music all day long and yes, we can see new tracks as they come online each day.
Also, if you look at your individual music page, a client can sort your music several different ways, including “Recently Added.” That way if a client likes your music each time he returns to the site he will see what new tracks you have uploaded; that’s why we like working with composers who are actively creating new tracks all the time, growing their catalogues into a potential for big success.
You will note a client can sort the music in other ways also, like Best Selling, Exclusive First, Alphabetical, Artist Choice, etc.
Each day we try to find and feature the most original music, discover what might be added to various Playlists, go onto the Music Editor’s Picks page – deciding which tracks are the most original and would most likely impress our clients for various types of commercials or productions.
GaryW’s advice is also spot-on when you are creating new tracks. If you can think up a mood you can write music for it, whether it’s an emotional piece, a joyful romantic boy-meets-girl track, or a chaotic bank heist. Try to play that movie in your head, and think of how the characters will act in a movie or TV show. A kid with a new puppy – what will he feel? A man who has been disinherited or kicked to the curb – bittersweet? Yes! Angry? Hell, yes! Write the music that shows those raw emotions…
And don’t forget that SFX can take a track to an entirely new level, adding an original touch to your music. Here is a great track from another brilliant UK composer, Sam Clunie, who is just 21 and on a meteoric rise here at AudioSparx. Sam joined our site exclusively in late March of this year and now ranks at 133 in sales – which is quite an accomplishment with over 3,000 composers at our site.
http://www.audiosparx.com/sa/archive/Action/Action-Thriller-Latin/Pursuit-in-Havana/477300
Just keep working and trying to bring originality to your scores and it can pay off in this business. If you find an artist you like here, sort by Best Selling and try to write music that is BETTER THAN that and you will be on your way.
Cheers,
Barbie
http://www.audiosparx.com
Thanks Barbie for the really detailed and helpful response.
this forum and all the commposers are inspiration enough fopr me.
I’m finishing up a track now I plan on uploading in the next hour or so. Hopefully, you get a chance to check it out.
Pat
Kiwi said:
“I backed into production music by being at the right place at the right time and becoming acquainted with someone at a production house through my role as a recording engineer.”
“One thing led to another and the next thing I know I’ve got a couple of tracks in a show. Then shortly after that I’m actually contributing on a regular basis.”
“By the same token I also know that “luck” is basically maintaining a good attitude and persevering regardless of what happens and being there, present and accounted for, when opportunity arrives.”
That’s how a lot of things happen in this business…being in the right place at the right time and then having the skill set to get the job done. Once people know that they can rely on you more things come your way.
Congratulations Kiwi, and best of luck for your continued success.
Michael
How’s the old saying go – “luck is when opportunity meets preparedness”….