StevenOBrien

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 8 posts - 21 through 28 (of 28 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: PRO registration of alts & edits #32434
    StevenOBrien
    Participant

    I don’t receive much in the way of backend yet, but a few months ago I received royalties for a track that I hadn’t even registered with IMRO, and it still got through. The person who filed the cue sheet didn’t properly write the name in a way that would have exactly matched any of the titles anyway.

    I realize it’s a good failsafe to have every title registered if you can, but given how much work it can be, I just wonder how necessary it is now. Have there been many cases where you’ve had royalties not get through because of an alt title?

    StevenOBrien
    Participant

    You’re definitely on the right track.

    I’d recommend downloading best-sellers from libraries you’re targeting and studying them closely. Trying to reproduce a top-selling composer’s track for practice is a great exercise, and can really help you learn new production techniques, and help you figure out if anything’s missing from your own work.

    Regarding structure, again, refer to best-sellers. I’d suggest making your tracks a bit longer (aim for about 2:30). Innovation Station in particular is way too short at 0:52 (even if you’re going for advertisement-length, it should be 60s exactly).

    For stock music, the best thing to do in my opinion is either a trailer music structure (three acts, increasing intensity, like a film, with an epilogue section), or intro-crescendo-bed-bigger crescendo-epilogue. There’s no strict rule, and It depends on what fits the music, but those are generally what you should be aiming for.

    And just to echo what BEATSLINGER said, be very careful about having noticeable changes in the music beyond the usual structural elements. A lot of stock music is used under dialogue, and elements like the synth coming in in Chillest Percussion can just be jarring in that context. Playing your tracks over timelapse videos, or videos of dialogue without music is a good gauge.

    StevenOBrien
    Participant

    I know for a fact that unless it is requested. NOT following the current music trends too closely, and being a few years behind is best.

    Got a laugh out of this, it’s very true.

    in reply to: Pointless Revisions? #32219
    StevenOBrien
    Participant

    If we’re talking about the same library, I once got asked to change _all_ of the major chords in a future bass track to minor chords because the track wasn’t sounding dark enough. When that wasn’t enough, it was suggested: “Hmm, we might have to make them diminished chords then”.

    StevenOBrien
    Participant

    Alternate versions make up 72% of my sales on Pond5.

    in reply to: Composers and artists themselves destroy the business. #29831
    StevenOBrien
    Participant

    We’re all going to be replaced by AI in a few years anyway.

    in reply to: How exactly do writers get paid in subscription models? #29800
    StevenOBrien
    Participant

    If it makes financial sense, I’ll opt into it. If it doesn’t, I won’t.

    Do we actually have any numbers to suggest that it would reduce revenue? Isn’t it entirely possible that a large number of new customers attracted by a different model could increase revenue for us in the long-term? I’m interested to see how the numbers work out.

    People are seeing this as one new subscriber customer = one less pay-per-download customer, but it’s entirely possible that one less pay-per-download customer could = 10 new subscriber customers. I think about all of the big-name YouTubers who currently opt to use free Creative Commons and YouTube Music Library music who might be attracted by the larger and higher quality selection of RF sites if it can be made more cost-effective for them to just grab whatever music they need.

    At any rate, I trust most music libraries not to make stupid decisions that would lose them a huge chunk of revenue. They stand to gain/lose as much as we do, right?

    in reply to: Motown #29776
    StevenOBrien
    Participant

    Buying stereo mixes in the late 60s was sort of like what buying 192KHz files from HDTracks is today. It was more about “Hey, isn’t this cool, we can hear one instrument in this speaker, and vocals in the other” than how we really think of stereo now.

    Stereo mixes were commonly done after ~1965, but up until the early 70s they were often an afterthought compared to the mono mixes, a gimmick. It wasn’t uncommon for engineers to spend weeks getting the mono mix perfect, and then to just dash off the stereo mix in a few hours with the band/producer not even present at the session.

    It’s very common to hear engineers/artists from that era talking now about how superior the mono mixes are compared to the stereo mixes. You’re even seeing things now like projects to do proper mixes of classic albums in stereo (eg Sgt. Pepper’s).

    —-

    So honestly, when doing soundalikes from that era, I’m trying to stick to a “classic sound, modern mix/quality” mantra going forward. You’re not filling up the track with tape hiss, recording errors, generation loss from bouncing, so why stick to outdated mixing practices too?

Viewing 8 posts - 21 through 28 (of 28 total)