March 3, 2014 at 4:34 pm #15132
In a recent thread, UK composer Emma S., went on at length about quality production music
Certainly here in the UK virtually NO RF music is ever used. I doubt if the BBC has ever in its history used one RF track. And the BBC is perhaps the most significant ‘per minute value’ broadcaster in the UK. It is a phantom market created by the perception that by simply ‘uploading a track’ to a repository, you are ‘in the game’.
Well, apparently now that’s more true than ever, because all of that top notch “quality” music is now available to cut and paste and reconstruct at will, by non-composers. I guess that really is “per minute value” at its best.
I give you the BBC “toolkit.” Instant quality.
There is not a great future for RF composers IMO
Looks a little murky for non RF composers, as well. 😉March 3, 2014 at 4:59 pm #15134
I, of course, do not mean to poke fun at Emma personally. Apologies, if you take it that way.
But, there is certainly a disconnect, between looking down on other composers and a system that now offers DIY music construction kits…sort of like a Dom Perignon make your own champagne kits.March 3, 2014 at 5:15 pm #15137Mark_PetrieParticipant
Quality of the music aside, I can’t help but think this elaborate, clever idea is probably more work for an editor than they really need. There’s so much great library music out there now – surely with a bit more searching they’ll find something they can edit to.
If construction kits were such a great idea, why isn’t every editor using the stock Apple Loops that come with Final Cut? Some of those are actually really good!March 3, 2014 at 5:20 pm #15138woodsdenisParticipant
As it says in the vid “no musical knowledge necessary”
So its free ? but you have to log cue sheets. Interesting idea, I suppose the Beeb contributed the orchestra and studio and Universal handle the publishing.. Kind of takes the Soundtrack Pro approach to a new level. I also assume the BBC would very much like you use this on their own programs !!!! BBC PRO rates are high and ITV higher. Now if you were writing bespoke orchestral scores for UK TV this would be a worry. The price difference would be huge.March 3, 2014 at 5:33 pm #15139woodsdenisParticipant
If construction kits were such a great idea, why isn’t every editor using the stock Apple Loops that come with Final Cut? Some of those are actually really good!
Good point, and good editors and rooms aren’t cheap or meant for doing this kinda thing, but employ a musician after the fact to assemble the music offline to a cut and it may be a viable thing.March 3, 2014 at 7:00 pm #15140
So its free ? but you have to log cue sheets
In which case it is an elaborate form of gratis licensing.
In its extreme use, is a compositional “paint-by-numbers” tool for non-musicians, in which the music itself is reduced to more or less a sound palette. I find that incongruous with the condescending attitude toward composers who work in other business models.
One interesting facet of this is that the editors are performing a function that is very similar to composers who use loops and phrases. Yet, it is the original composers, not the creators of the newly constructed works who will get the royalties. So, imagine if suddenly all of the composers who created loops and phrases for Garage Band, Maschine, Symphobia, Session Horns, anything from Big Fish, etc., received royalties instead of the composers using those tools.
Just the legal brain working overtime, but the line between creation
and mere editing is very gray.March 4, 2014 at 3:58 am #15141BarryGuest
I was an editor for 16 years for one of the big Australian commerical stations. No way are editors going to “assemble” construction kits to create music, they only have just enough time to edit let alone fiddle with music. The post audio dept might use them but really i think it’s for the smaller production guys that have a lityle more time. Not to mention the last thing you want is more audio tracks on an already cpu resource heavy video timeline..March 4, 2014 at 4:50 am #15142music_proParticipant
Yes…I dont think its gonna work, too much messing around…it takes time for the editor to piece this together and then the post sound guy to mix it…too much work.March 5, 2014 at 5:00 am #15161JohnGuest
I have just signed up and been accepted for this Toolkit system and can say categorically that having spent an hour or more looking through it,it is quite simply not worth the effort as has already been stated by some contributors.March 5, 2014 at 5:56 am #15162
I have just signed up and been accepted for this Toolkit system and can say categorically that having spent an hour or more looking through it,it is quite simply not worth the effort as has already been stated by some contributors.
Good to know John. Perhaps this means that the sanctity of quality production music will be preserved. 😀March 5, 2014 at 6:10 am #15164JohnGuest
Beyond any shadow of a doubt Michael!March 5, 2014 at 6:26 am #15165
Could have been a slippery slope from there
into the abyss of RF music. 😛March 6, 2014 at 10:25 pm #15169Desire_InspiresParticipant
Anybody able to download the kit? I kept getting an error message.March 7, 2014 at 5:20 am #15196
Anybody able to download the kit? I kept getting an error message.
Yes, see John…above.
Keep in mind the toolkit is for video editors and producers. It is not for musicians to make and sell library music. Doing so would most definitely be infringement.March 8, 2014 at 10:37 am #15207Desire_InspiresParticipant
Yes, see John…above.
Keep in mind the toolkit is for video editors and producers. It is not for musicians to make and sell library music. Doing so would most definitely be infringement.
Well, heck. What is the point?
Video editors can spend $5,000 and get a ton of great music via a blanket license. Why spend time editing these files? The savings would be minimal in today’s environment in comparison to the time spent.