- This topic has 6 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 9 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
Here is another successful and new subscription based library (Article)
I think this ‘library’ is more than just another subscription based library.
It’s supposedly ‘AI’ creating tracks. Probably accessing loops? If you’re a pessimist, this looks like the beginning of the end for library music composers. If you’re an optimist, this will just show to the world how valuable good quality, original writing and production is. I tried it out and the results were pretty lame, and the choices of genre slim. I imagine with some time and money invested, the quality could go way up.
I couldn’t read the RT article (paywall) you posted but they just won the UK’s TechCrunch Disrupt. If you’ve watched the show Silicon Valley, you know this is a big deal: http://techcrunch.com/2015/12/08/jukedeck-wins-disrupt-london-2015/
“Jukedeck is a platform that lets users create custom, cheap, royalty-free soundtracks for their videos and/or podcasts, all without any musical talent. Users simply choose a tempo, mood, style and the length of the track and Jukedeck does all the heavy lifting.
“Users can get their first five songs free each month, and then pay $7 per track, while larger businesses pay $15 per soundtrack. There is even a $150 fee for the exclusive copyright over a user’s song.”
You can see an interesting video where the Cambridge educated creators pitch JukeDeck, and talk about ‘expensive’ $40 tracks on this page: http://techcrunch.com/2015/12/07/jukedeck/
I know I’m biased but shouldn’t it be called Junkdeck!!!!
This doesn’t sound like composing on the fly but assembling on the fly. Premade loops in various genres which can intelligently assembled into certain lengths. Clever, but I wonder how unique ? How quickly does YT spot a copyright, it seems to be pretty quick, therefor a 2 sec loop used in 2 separate compositions would be flagged very quickly no ?
Users can get their first five songs free each month, and then pay $7 per track, while larger businesses pay $15 per soundtrack. There is even a $150 fee for the exclusive copyright over a user’s song.”
Their argument is based totally on the premise that it takes an endless amount of time for editors and producers to find the right track in a library. It doesn’t.
They also assume that the buyer will create a track that they are happy with in less time than it would take to find a better track. Maybe, maybe not.
$7 and $15 are competitive with AJ prices. Higher than AM subscriber prices. Higher than RumbF and, I’m sure, others. There are cheaper subscriptions out there. So, this is not necessarily a deal.
Of course, they fail to consider aesthetics. None of this will sound as good as tracks that a professional has worked on for days, recorded with quality instruments, then mixed properly and mastered. There are clients for whom this music simply will not be good enough.
This product is for people who don’t care, don’t know, or cannot afford better.
Horses for courses. Some people will gladly pay $15 for a great burger while others flock to McDonald’s for a bargain. This won’t be the end of the world as long as film, TV, and video producers care about the quality of their product.
My experience of the subscription model is………
I wanted a few pics and I decided to sign up to a large company to the supply the stuff.
it was great at first but now I’m paying out every month for something I’m not using.
My fault of course but it could be the experience of a lot of other people in the future.
And of course Michael(the proper one) is absolutly spot on in his evaluation of the situation.
”’This product is for people who don’t care, don’t know, or cannot afford better.”’
I would say that is a very large percentage of consumers needing music.
And I am the $15 burger fan. Oh yes.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.