- This topic has 20 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
It seems from the listening I’ve done that the tracks on exclusive libraries seem to be more unique, different, and sometimes higher quality than those found on non-exclusives. Does anyone agree that this is generally true, or is this just my own experience?
If it does tend to work this way, than I’m thinking I can use that knowledge to help with my approach. I can work on more creative, interesting things with the goal of submitting to the exclusives, while also recording more generic things for the non-exclusives.
I’ll weigh in with my perspective: I had been checking out [xxxxx] offerings (they’re exclusive only), which are strong and very well produced (apparently they’ll even hire an orchestra for recording some works), but on the electronica end of things, while I found the work very high quality and very polished, they all seemed to inhabit the same rather narrow style & mood: catchy, techie, high energy and a bit schizophrenic (which suits modern TV, if you’re watching). But I didn’t find anything particularly new or _different_ in their offerings, even after spending some time consciously searching for “moody” or “dark” or “somber” electronica works (in the vein of Radiohead, Massive Attack, Boards of Canada, etc.).
So I had actually sent in a few tracks for consideration, with this knowledge in mind, and banking on the fact that what I was submitting was fairly well removed from what I had been hearing.
Their answer was essentially “Great tracks, but not different enough from what our composers already produce.”
Not different enough? Hmm.
Truth is, I think the kind of thing I was searching for–and the kind of thing I aimed to produce–is just not marketable enough. This probably applies to many styles. I think it becomes a simple matter of ROI for them, so why sign on another mouth to feed…
Whereas for non-exclusive libraries, the more tracks the merrier. Server space is cheap.
Oops…don’t know if I was supposed to mention the specific company name above…apologies if that was a no-no 😛
Emlyn, its OK, its not TAXI here 🙂
And I agree about this, I think exclusive libraries got higher quality tracks in some styles, which are more composer driven styles like orchestral and such.
But, from what ive seen on the non-exclusive libraries, they sometimes got better and more real Hip Hop/Dance/Indie Rock styles because the ones who make those styles are sometimes artists who just want more exposure, and they make those tracks better then the all around composer and tend to licensee it non-exclusively in order to keep marking those by themselves.
….they sometimes got better more real Hip Hop/Dance/Indie Rock styles because the ones who make those styles are sometimes artists who just want more exposure, and they make those tracks better then the all around composer…
Lack of “more real” hip hop/dance etc., in exclusive libraries is not necessarily the result of music being composed by “all around composers.” Real hip hop and dance music is not “mainstream” enough for a lot of broadcast audiences, and it gets in the way. Hip hop “flavored” often works better, and is more marketable on many levels.
Hip Pop, or Hick Hop are better meta data descriptions!!
But my pants don’t hang off me Crack in booty…..
Okay I’ll chime in and I submitted to [xxxxx]
and they would not fire other composers and hire us though they liked
most of the tracks they listened too @ our site!Fine…
This is where quality will come to the non ex’s cause there won’t be a choice.
Those in the exclusive positions will hold their ground closely as the landscape will change again…..and again….Where’s me ever ready battery…….??
The thing about exclusives IME is to send them new material to audition every so often. When you get the quality to their level and you can bring something fresh that they want, the door will open. And don’t get hung up on one excl. There are plenty of good ones out there.
This is not to say there isn’t top shelf music in non-exclusives. Of course there is. But generally speaking it is easier to have material accepted into non-excl. so I would say the *average* quality of music in excl is higher than in non-excl.
The genre I’m focused on doesn’t get licensed from non-excl. though, so it’s a case of lifting my own standards. There’s no choice.
Oops…don’t know if I was supposed to mention the specific company name above…apologies if that was a no-no
You are right. Please don’t. Keep it in the library’s listing.
I think it’s impossible to generalize about the quality of music in libraries based on exclusive vs. non-exclusive. In fact, it’s probably dangerous to even think that way when writing music. It varies so much.
Just write the best music you can all the time and place it where the opportunity for placement seems best, based on the info available.
My 2 cents.
😀
The genre I’m focused on doesn’t get licensed from non-excl. though, so it’s a case of lifting my own standards. There’s no choice.
I think this hits the nail on the head…at least in terms of the kind of small, specific niche that I had been aiming for:
“Quality”, while very important, is not necessarily the deciding factor when it’s something very different being offered, because there is less frame of reference by which to judge it. (You know styles A, B, and C, but how do you judge style D or X?)
“Fresh” is also misleading, I think, because what this implies is just freshening up an existing style. “Fresh” doesn’t mean radical or different, it just means “tweaked”.
The real issue, IMO? Marketability. That’s a biggie, no matter what niche you plan to fill.Perhaps most importantly, this plays into the whole problem of modern entertainment essentially being THE populist medium…no getting away from that, and so originality will definitely take a back seat to proven commercial trends. (Who wants to risk their $$$$ project with a weird soundtrack?)
So would you rather write Hollywood/TVland schlock–even GREAT Hollywood/TVland schlock–and make a living writing music, or write strange, different, interesting stuff that will probably never sell (unless you get hella lucky with a kooky director’s pet project!)?
Pick a horse and there’s your answer.
The real issue, IMO? Marketability. That’s a biggie, no matter what niche you plan to fill.
Yes, Emlyn, THAT is the real issue. This IS a business. The library business, licensing business, whatever you want to call, it is a business. The music that one puts into this marketplace must FUNCTION on some level within the marketplace.
What Rob (cruciform) composes is trailer style music (very well I would ad). And, generally speaking, that kind of high-end music is not licensed through non-exclusive libraries. It’s not a small niche, but rather one with very specific standards, particularly with respect to sonic quality.
So would you rather write Hollywood/TVland schlock-even GREAT Hollywood/TVland schlock-and make a living writing music, or write strange, different, interesting stuff that will probably never sell (unless you get hella lucky with a kooky director’s pet project!)?
To be blunt, your question tells us everything that we might need to know about about why someone, anyone, would have difficulty succeeding in this business. The moment that one characterizes well-produced commercially viable music as “schlock” they are making a value judgement that places them outside the sphere of most frequent industry needs and industry norms.
That might satisfy one’s “artistic” yearnings, but it is tilting at windmills in this business. I would ask why would anyone try to make it in this frustrating business, if they dislike and look down on the very medium in which they are trying to succeed?
That said. there are a few libraries/licensing companies where one can be more adventurous, but you’ve got to do your homework. [Removed by moderator]
Bets of luck.
Michael
To be blunt, your question tells us everything that we might need to know about about why someone, anyone, would have difficulty succeeding in this business. The moment that one characterizes well-producedcommercially viable music as “schlock” they are making a value judgement that places them outside the sphere of most frequent industry needs and industry norms.
I don’t “look down” on any of this; I just hunger for the possibility of a richer and more diverse muse. No crime in that.
But yes, this is definitely a value judgement–most specifically on what the “industry’s needs” actually motivate composers to produce. So while the business side of me appreciates the creative intelligence and high production quality of the music, the artist in me still can’t help but wish that the vehicle could take more risk.
Money does not like risk so “fresh” takes on what we already know is a safer bet…not that there aren’t shining exceptions, mind you.
To be fair, I should have written “FOR Hollywood schlock”, because it’s not the music that affects–disaffects?–me but the “what’s popular” entertainment machine, that seems largely unconcerned with innovation. This sensibility, I find, trickles down to the music supervisors/libraries and, in turn, to the composers and their work.
Frustrating? Sure, but show me a creative endeavor that isn’t!
To be fair, I should have written “FOR Hollywood schlock”, because it’s not the music that affects-disaffects?-me but the “what’s popular” entertainment machine, that seems largely unconcerned with innovation. This sensibility, I find, trickles down to the music supervisors/libraries and, in turn, to the composers and their work.
Emlyn, there’s a saying in the law, res ipsa loquitur, “the thing speaks for itself.” Your attitude speaks for itself. You want enlightenment not entertainment, art not commerce.
There are many professional composers, who take great pride in their work, even if it is for what you call the “what’s popular entertainment machine.” I just heard the doors to 100’s of libraries slamming.
You’re going to have to find a way to balance and compartmentalize those needs to survive in this game.
Food for thought.
_Michael
MichaelL, thanks for your compliment. I appreciate that 🙂
So would you rather write Hollywood/TVland schlock-even GREAT Hollywood/TVland schlock-and make a living writing music, or write strange, different, interesting stuff that will probably never sell (unless you get hella lucky with a kooky director’s pet project!)?
Pick a horse and there’s your answer.
Emlyn,
I know it’s possible to combine ‘commercial’ with ‘artistically satisfying’. I’m doing it right now. I absolutely love the music I’m creating at the moment. It’s exciting to listen to the finished work, it’s fun to make. When I finish a piece that feels right, I have a sense of creative fulfillment. I do have some restrictions in terms of structure but they’re not onerous or creatively stifling. Reading between the lines, maybe you need to keep looking for your niche where you can experience the same. 🙂
Emlyn, there’s a saying in the law, res ipsa loquitur, “the thing speaks for itself.” Your attitude speaks for itself. You want enlightenment notentertainment, art not commerce.
Are you suggesting that there can’t be both–art and commerce?
But you’ve drawn the wrong conclusions here; nobody is expecting high art from this medium only that we, as composers, are operating in a system that prizes populist sensibilities.I just heard the doors to 100?s of libraries slamming.
And this is my point precisely; which leads me to the Latin phrase Modus operandi.
I don’t doubt that there is a niche out there for each of us, and I very much second Rob’s POV that even our commercial work can be incredibly fun & satisfying.But, I suspect that most composers here, deep down, know what I’m talking about.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.