- This topic has 54 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 2 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
No problem, Art.
This is indeed an interesting debate…
Actually I don’t think it is so easy to divide composers in pro’s and hobbyists. At Apollo Live we have some very talented composers who have other day jobs… They don’t depend on the library income for their living but I would still hate to see their excellent music being sold at 100 Euro or less. We just placed 2 tracks from a hobbyist on a Polish TV series for about Euro 5000, and on top of the sync fee he now has many polish fans buying his album. That is inteligent business and win-win in my opinion.
Had this composer/hobbyist been without guidence he might well have given the track away for free and been part of forcing the prices down.
And yes I do believe that talented hobbyists can take away a lot of business from the pro’s. However I am not affraid of composers with little talent offering their music for free, they are simply pricing their product at what it is worth.
My initial point was however that every composer should think of themselves as a brand. Do they want to be a BMW or a Kia? There is nothing wrong with being a Kia, they are sold a lot and many people are happy with them. However you can’t both be a Kia and a BMW so it important to choose early in your career what kind of brand you want to be.
Daniel Käfer
apollolive.comGreat insight Daniel.
I believe that there is room for everybody in the music licensing business. No one path is better than another.
My initial point was however that every composer should think of themselves as a brand. Do they want to be a BMW or a Kia? There is nothing wrong with being a Kia, they are sold a lot and many people are happy with them.
Interesting analogy Daniel. I use it often. However, I take it one step further and look at the big picture. Toyota makes Lexus and they make the Corolla. The same company makes products for both ends of the market. My opinion is that unless you are trying to be an “artist” / pop star with a fan base, it makes sense to act as if you are a business and diversify your product line to all levels of the market.
Not all music is created equal. I’ve accumulated a large catalog (2,000+ cues) of music from documentaries, education videos, and corporate productions etc, mostly not the kind of music that would be placed in broadcast advertising, and command high license fees.
The RF model makes perfect sense for that kind of music, it’s not royalty driven. Moreover, that music paid for itself long ago, so I can afford to sell it for $100, which will provide an additional revenue stream to my overall business, that allows me to develop other projects and products.Cheers,
MichaelHi Michael
I do agree with you. You can diversify and have some music in exclusive and some in RF as long as you have a strategy for which goes where.
The Lexus goes to the exclusive and the Corolla goes to RF… As long as composers don’t place the Lexus with RF 😉
I also don’t believe that all RF are the same. Actually I am fine with selling music for private or semi-private youtube video’s for little money. What upsets me is when they offer worldwide advertising or TV licenses for next to nothing.
Daniel Käfer
apollolive.comCAn we talk more about this strategy for which goes where. right now I hammer stuff out and submit. By the time I spend several hours writing and mixing a track, I can’t tell a FOrd MAveick from a Ferrarri. I write primarily rock/ pop instrumental stuff. THis would require some time, say a month, for m to objectively decide where to put this stuff. WHich flies in the face of my usually impulsive nature :). However, if I am writing for requests I tend to favor treating those tracks as exclusive.
Hi Chuck
To me it seems that the exclusive libraries goes in the direction of well defined album concepts where 15-20 tracks fit well in the concept… time must be spend on:
* Mastering
* Making jingles
* make sure the tracks ends really well, not fadingOn the other hand if you just composed a cool groove, but does not feel like on using time on the above or making a full album it might be easier to upload it on a non-exclusive website.
If you want you can send me a few of you best tracks and I can let you know what I think.
Daniel Käfer (daniel@apollolive.com)
Apollolive.comI appreciate that, will do.
I think it’s very important to remember that there is a progression with any career path, and music is no different. Personally, I think most hobbyist musicians would jump at an opportunity to get a large placement, huge sync fee, have their music in a super high quality library, and to be able to create music as a full time occupation. The problem is those opportunities aren’t really their for them when they just start out. More then likely they will have to start at the bottom of the pile and work their way up. With that they are going to have to start somewhere and if that somewhere allows them to set their own pricing they are going to race to the bottom. It is a VERY common thought to go “well my music isn’t moving at $40 so I must be to high.” Then when the music isn’t moving at $40 they will drop down so low that that they will just take something.
It’s important to remember that these musicians are the ones that probably 6 months ago where giving away all of their music for free under the veil of creative commons to “get their name out there.” If musicians/composers can agree on anything I hope it would be to quit with creative commons.
I really don’t think anyone should feel threatened especially if your at the top of the pyramid. You’ve spent a long time honing your skills, buying gear, and proving your talent over and over again. That is valuable, and something that can’t be taken away. It seems like a lot of the debate about libraries and strategies comes back to pricing and all that but I really believe the car analogy. Do you think Ferrari really cares about what Volkswagen is doing, or Rolex cares about some $10 Walmart watch?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.