- This topic has 287 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 2 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Michael your quote:
“Audiosparx, reveals many composers from places where $15 goes a long way. In other words, like every other industry, we face competition from parts of the world where “labor” costs a fraction of what it does in more “developed” nations.”
[Deleted this section of a ridiculous rant, name calling and boorish behavior. Glen you are about to be banned if you can’t keep things civil and respectful!]
Glen you are about to be banned if you can’t keep things civil!
Sorry I didn’t get a chance to read the rant. @@
Thanks for stepping in Art, but there’s no need. I’m a big boy. I can handle it.
What I can’t handle, and won’t do, is waste time.Cheers,
Michael@MichaelL: I know you can handle it but the bigger issue is I just don’t want people here that can’t debate in a respectful manner.
No worries Art. It’s hard, but writers have to keep this business in perspective. There’s a big blue ocean of opportunity out there, for writers at all levels. I don’t envy or begrudge those above or below.
Glen’s work for hire, $26,000 for 26 cues sounds like the holy grail compared to selling cues at $15. But, you and I both know multiple individuals who’ve made more than 26K (in some cases far more) from a single cue. I’ve done it, several times (with cues produced in a day, that didn’t require conservatory training to compose).
I’ll echo Mark’s sentiment. I wish Glen continued success with his musical career. He knows what works for him. Kudos.
_Michael
Hello Michael,
I wish everyone continued success and I have no idea why you may be implying that I said everyone needs “conservatory training”. I don’t believe I ever wrote that. I am glad to see you talk about earning 26K from 1 cue as opposed to $15 for 1 cue on RF sites. Just like you Michael, I too have earned 26K from 1 cue before. I really got the impression that you were defending $15 a track RF pricing. Art, sorry if my “ridiculous rant” was so offensive to you. I read what I wrote and personally did not find it to be that big of a deal. This thread is just a debate and a place for us to share our thoughts and ideas. None of us truly “know” each other here and we’re nothing but “digital names” writing about our business’ challenges. Anyway, we all clearly do not see eye to eye on this subject matter at all. If some writers want to support the concept of selling cues for $15 on RF sites (because writers in India can eat for 1 week with $15), and signing away your intellectual property in perpetuity to exclusive publishers for no advance fee…then that is fine. I personally find it VERY foolish. There is nothing wrong with wanting to get composers to think with some common ground regarding minimum pricing standards and how to approach NE and E issues. The intent of my writings are to PROTECT the future earnings potential for all composers. How did the 50/50 deal become standard for licensing fees? If that became “standard” why can’t we think about a respectable/ logical minimum “standard” RF fee? I am NOT saying let’s price fix. I am saying just have a hidden norm in our minds that charging $15 for a Track is not going to advance our cause and our occupation: composing production music for films, TV shows, Promos, Trailers, TV and radio advertisements. I don’t have a problem with tracks being sold for $79, $89, $139 Etc. I have a big problem with $5, $10, $15, $20. It’s simply desperate and foolish pricing and there is nothing wrong with me trying to persuade writers not to do it. I am very confident that businesses will be willing to spend more for a RF track. Why don’t we get a thread going where we ask that question and survey everyone’s response: What should be the minimum fee composers charge for a TV production music track or film cue on the royalty free market? What should songwriters charge for a full song with vocals on the royalty free market? Let’s vote on it and see what the results are.
Glen, we’re pretty much on the same page. I wouldn’t sell RF cues at $5, $10, $15 or $20, unless you’re talking about tiered pricing. If someone want’s to pay $15 for a 4 second stinger, I don’t really have a problem with that, because it’s most likely just an edit of a longer cue that is selling for $100.
My point about India, etc, is not to expect “hungry” composers, anywhere, to not vigorously compete on price. As Advice said, they will. Still others, unfortunately are of the misguided belief that low-balling is the way to open doors. Of course, let’s not forget that the libraries are competing amongst themselves.
You and I are very fortunate that our level of “success” affords us the opportunity to be more particular about things. Others, unfortunately, see micro-dollars and volume as the way to go. We’re not likely to change that. There was a long debate on this forum with someone who was completely enamored of Rumblefish. No one was going to change hs mind.
So be it.And..it was mr composer who was touting his conservatory training.
Cheers,
MichaelArt, sorry if my “ridiculous rant” was so offensive to you.
As I (and others) have mentioned before, we are not in disagreement with much of what you say. It’s how you express it that can be off putting and insulting. There was that one rant so full of profanity it was also ridiculous and so deleted. Believe me I’m no prude, I spent 4 years in the Marine Corps so there isn’t much I haven’t heard. I think we can be better than that.
BTW the use of paragraphs would also significantly improve your communication skills. Just sayin’ 🙂
There was that one rant so full of profanity it was also ridiculous and so deleted. Believe me I’m no prude, I spent 4 years in the Marine Corps so there isn’t much I haven’t heard. I think we can be better than that.
This is not directed at Glen, or anyone else. The issue of language is not about being a “prude.” There’s an important lesson here for young composers. Rightly, or wrongly, people judge a wide range of things about other people including, but not limited to, their: intellect, maturity, competence, professionalism, class, and simply whether the person is someone that they want to deal with, based upon their choice of words.
People get passionate about issues. But, if you read the posts of the top pros here, like Mark Petrie, you will notice that they are thoughtful, articulate and measured. No matter what the issue is, you won’t see ranting or profanity. Other professionals, including library owners and A&R people, read this page. I’m sure that they make mental notes of who they might not want to work with. I do.
Maybe that seems unfair, but, in a busy world no one has time to deal with a difficult person, no matter how good they think they are.
Sorry to go off thread, but it seemed to follow on Art’s statement.
_Michael
Never stop being a professional in all your dealings including what you post on a public forum. As Art and Michael said, it’s not what you say so much as how you say it.
I cringe when I see someone trash a library on here using their real name (not that I approve of it under alias). When you trash Library A, maybe the owners of Libraries B and C are reading and may decide not to deal with you. When I co-write (and many of my co-writes have been my most successful tracks), I choose co-writers as much by professionalism and attitude as anything else. It’s a small world. Reputation gets around. I see it all the time in my day job career and the music world really is no different.
Think of it this way. You go on a job interview and the interviewer asks you, “Why do you want to leave your current job?”… You answer, “Cos my boss is an a-hole”. Would you get hired?
Well I came to this thread because I was curious about how other composers were thinking about exclusive vs non-exclusive agreements and boy did I stumble into a hornets nest.
Hi MuscoSound,
It’s a polarising issue for some people. At the end of the day, it’s horses for courses.
to go back to the original issue… I’ve counted a few composers being very successful at those $15-30 library sites. the number of sales they had was clearly justifying a seemingly ridiculous price tag.
to be clear, the most successful tracks were all very similar, decently produced and clearly not the next Stravinsky piece
At the end of the day, it’s horses for courses.
Love that phrase Rob. There is no single right answer. We are like blind men describing an elephant.
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~rywang/berkeley/258/parable.html
I’ve always kind of rolled with the philosophy of if your music is high quality and commercially useful then you will get placements, regardless of what other musicians or libraries are pricing their tracks for. Before making music full time, I worked in the business world and there was always people selling things for cheap, but the important thing is not price but value. As musicians sometimes I think we can get hung up on what other people are doing, and that fear means only one thing. A confidence problem.
Remember there is a ton of musicians that just give away music for free via creative commons, and just a hope that giving away free music will “get their name out there.” Personally it seems like there is a progression that happens. New musicians entering the game are going to have to start somewhere, and as they build experience and skills they are going to climb the library ladder. You can’t dismiss that progression and talk negatively about what they are doing because they have to start somewhere. If they are good then they are going to be successful at the $15-30 level, and if they are good at that I am sure they will have the thought “I’ve proven myself here, now I need to advance and go for bigger fish.”
At the same time there is a huge new market that is licensing music and as technology advances so will demand. There is more then enough work out there and it’s growing. It seems like the negativity is from feeling threatened, and I hope everyone kind of chills out about it because the placements your after are not the same placements other people are after. Some musicians are just happy if they can make a living being the background music guy for short commercial YouTube videos that have a super super small budget. Just do what you do, create awesome music, and look forwards not backwards.
Great post MuscoSound and spot on.