Any threads that break out on the merits of library music will be moved here. Have at it:-)
67 thoughts on “Library Music – Art Or Noise”
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Music creators rating the music libraries.
Any threads that break out on the merits of library music will be moved here. Have at it:-)
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I agree with you 100%. I know that some here will take your comments personally. But you told the truth. Most of the ‘libraries’ out there are like cyber dumpsters for music. I can tell you from experience that most composers waste time submitting music to non-exclusive libraries. They just have too many songs and do too little to promote their catalogs. This is why I stopped messing around with them.
People are sheepish when it comes to critiquing other people’s music, including their own. It is unfortunate too, because a good critique can do more good than harm in the long run. I think this post should be used as a wake-up call to all of us that make music. Making better music should be the goal for anyone serious about a career in the music business. I frequently hear comments saying “quality is subjective”. But quality isn’t really that hard to notice.
@Jimmy Boy said:
>Most of the ‘libraries’ out there are like cyber dumpsters for music. I can tell you from experience that most composers waste time submitting music to non-exclusive libraries. They just have too many songs and do too little to promote their catalogs. This is why I stopped messing around with them.<
I have a feeling that, like some others here, I've been in this business for more years than you've had birthdays. Prior to the internet, a good many of the libraries out there were vinyl dumpsters and CD dumpsters too. Proliferation of mediocrity is not new. I could point you to the website of a big exclusive where you'll find some dated music that's so bad it's almost a parody of library music — but it's still there.
Quality IS somewhat subjective. Because it's a personal thing. What do YOU mean by quality? For example, what if I said to you there are some people who think that Hip Hop, no matter how well done, is not quality music (I do not agree with that) because it lacks the harmonic and melodic structure of orchestral music. That is where people's subjective ideas about quality come into play.
“I have a feeling that, like some others here, I’ve been in this business for more years than you’ve had birthdays.”
I do not know if I should address you seriously or if I should just laugh. I will choose the latter. Thanks for the advice. :-). You have made my day.
For the last 30 years, my goal has been to “make better music.”
My point is that what people consider “better music” IS subjective because one person’s music is another’s noise. I don’t judge which is which.
So I asked what you consider to be better music –fair enough question. You chose not to answer. You may be schooled, maybe not. You may generate beats on Maschine or you may write 5th species counterpoint. I don’t know.
Because I’ve been fortunate enough to earn a living in this business, I guess I qualify as being “serious” about a career in the music business.
Go with the laugh, if you don’t get it.
Cheers,
ML
I think the term ‘library music’ has taken on a whole new meaning these days. years ago it stood for quality – KPM, De Wolfe and the like. Proper established companies who’s trax fall into the mainstream consciousness – in great theme tunes for example.
Now library music refers to any number of mickey mouse online ‘companies’ started by some guys in a bedroom with a PC knocking up a site and hoarding 6 billion bad-mediocre trax that have zero chance ever seeing the inside of a documentary makers editing suite. I think if my grandmother set up a ‘library music’ site tomorrow and asked for submissions she’d get 1,000 submissions by the end of the day. Where’s the quality control these days?
I just don’t think people are quite getting the fact that there’s library music…and then there’s library music.
Why are people bothering with all this royalty free stuff and unproven ‘libraries’ which get maybe 1 usage a year perhaps in an unheard of cable channel. Why is ‘ease of submission’ considered a good thing? If it’s easy, it ain’t worth jack would be my advice. Look at all the posts on here? Thousands of them – I think I’ve maybe read 5 in total that suggest good money is being earnt. Certainly, a case of the exception proving the rule. For many, it seems the endgame is getting the submissions accepted.
Do you guys go and listen to the music on these sites? I mean really listen? It’s awful. Wouldn’t it be better to try and make a really special quality product and try and get it placed with someone who can really DO something with your music? Like a good exclusive such as Extreme for example?
I’m sorry to be so cynical. I just don’t get it. Royalty-free is just a euphemism for sub-mediocre as far as I can tell and I really think alot of guys trying to get into this should be raising the bar. I’m sorry if I’m repeating myself as I may have said that before. For the companies themselves it’s just a numbers game, not a quality game. Another misconception – huge numbers = huge choice. Wrong. Huge numbers just equals another several thousand trax that an editor won’t be bothered to trawl through. Most of the sites have grossly inferior search systems. I could name names but won’t. Let’s be honest, your track – even if it’s sensational – will never be found. It’s like a lottery – but one day, through luck, your track might just show up and get that incredible once in a lifetime usage. Hurrah.
I just find the level of desperation to get trax into crap libraries depressing and I think I should stop visiting this site as my comments are perhaps as welcome as a fox in a chicken coop.
Best of luck anyway.
Well thats letting ’em have it with both barrels and no mistake.
But I have to agree :
>I just don’t think people are quite getting the fact that there’s library music…and then there’s library music.
In addition… I thought it would be an interesting exercise to calculate what percentage of my income is derived from R*yalty Free / self upload libraries compared to the UK Exclusives I mostly write for over the last 12 month period.
So I did the math and it works out like this :
Income from R*yalty Free : 0.005 %
Income from UK Exclusive Libraries : 99.005%
Darkstar – Without knowing how many tracks you have Royalty Free compared to how many tracks you have in Exclusive libraries, your numbers are pointless. For example, maybe you have 20 tracks royalty free compared to 500 exclusive.
@El Jol: my my my, but don’t we feel special. There are so many perhaps incorrect assumptions in your tirade that I do not have time to address all of them.
I have written for exclusive libraries in the US the UK and AU — for many years. I know that there is library music and then there is LIBRARY MUSIC. But, I have no problem with putting SOME tracks into royalty free libraries.
What you miss is that there are levels of everything in this life. There’s Kobe beef and then there’s McBurgers. They occupy different places in the market, and each serves its purpose.
Here’s a glaring obvious reality that you overlook: the clients for exclusive libraries, like Extreme, are different than the average royalty free client. If you took the time to read client testimonials on sites like Music Loops and AudioSparx, you would find the most of the clients are non broadcast producers. They do not have budgets that justify paying a high sync fee to an exclusive library.
As far as “Mickey Mouse” goes. Not a good analogy –that mouse has built an empire. Yes, there is in fact some cheesy crap by clueless composers out there. However, your assumption the all music on royalty free sites is composed by clueless losers is flat out wrong.
This writer (with credits you would probably envy) http://markpetrie.com/main/ has many tracks on Music Loops. http://www.musicloops.com/royalty_free_music_composer/mark-petrie-12/
Also check out Jason Livesay, for an education — on AudioSparx and Music Loops.
If you think that either Mr. Petrie’s work or Mr. Livesay’s work is “sub-mediocre” then you are merely delusional and I suggest you post a link to your tracks so that we all may be enlightened.
I would suggest that Mssrs Petrie and Livesay are knowledgable business persons, who recognize the various tiers of the market, and derive revenue streams from each.
As far as quality goes, Emmett Cooke has written at length about how quality will rise to the top in a royalty free setting.
@darkstar: of course you realize that you must have the exact same number of tracks in exclusive libraries AND royalty free libraries for your calculation to be relevant. Some would even argue that it would need to be the exact same tracks. I’m sure that Erwin (50 Styles) will tell you that even within in the same royalty free library some tracks perform 99% better than others.
One final obvious point — if royalty free libraries are loaded with crap by sub-mediocre composers, why should those composers even bother submitting tracks to Extreme, where they would be competing with Hans Zimmer and Rodney Jerkins? What chance would they have of getting in the door?
Yes royalty free libraries are pretty egalitarian, whereas exclusive libraries are a meritocracy, and perhaps that’s what bothers you.
I suppose that you would just tell all of those writers to wake up, realize that they are crap, and go do something else?
On the other hand, I think that each business model serves a mostly different client base, and as such, each business model serves as a viable revenue stream for appropriate content.
_Michael
@MichaelL Thank you for replying in a much more eloquent fashion than I would have to El Jol.
I was in the studio all day reading the replies to him/her. The only people I have found in this business who rubbish other peoples work and methods of distributing it are people who are very insecure and afraid of being found out.
The only other comment I would make is that Audiosparx and Musicloops (and many others I dont know of) have been in business for many, many years and license a lot of music and make a lot of money for their composers. Like anything else the cream rises to the top.
Are there poor royalty free libraries, of course there are. There are poor exclusive ones too, as highlighted on here. It really does seem sometimes that some composers are really scared and uptight at the royalty free business, if they are so successful why should they care what everyone else does.
>@darkstar: of course you realize that you must have the exact same number of tracks in exclusive libraries AND royalty free libraries for your calculation to be relevant.
A fair point. However, by and large I work for exlclusives because I *know* whatever they take is going to get usage as a direct result. I find the paid usage from Royalty Free to be way to hit and miss. So no, I don’t share 50 / 50 between the two. What I have in Exclusive Libraries far out weighs the Royalty Free.
But I would agree that users for Royalty Free are not the same users for Exclusives. It’s two different markets.
>Some would even argue that it would need to be the exact same tracks.
I get what your saying but it’s impossible with an Exclsuive Library. They sign material on an Exclusive basis for perpetuity, thats just how it works.
> I’m sure that Erwin (50 Styles) will tell you that even within in the same royalty free library some tracks perform 99% better than others.
Absolutely. There are obviously some very talented writers, such as Erwin.
>why should those composers even bother submitting tracks to Extreme, where they would be competing with Hans Zimmer and Rodney Jerkins? What chance would they have of getting in the door?
Well thats it isn’t it. You want to play with the big boys, thats your competition.
@darkstar
> Well thats it isn’t it. You want to play with the big boys, thats your competition.Are there poor royalty free libraries, of course there are. There are poor exclusive ones too, as highlighted on here.<
I have tracks in "exclusive" libraries that I would love to take back. I think that they would earn more in a library like Music Loops or AudioSparx. The exclusive libraries where the tracks are now do nothing to place the music in relevant markets.
El Jol – You sound hugely jaded to me. Do you make a great living from writing for exclusive libraries? If so, why are you so miserable and so bothered by what everyone else does?
El Jol,
Exactly. I just got hired to do a boatload of cues for a “real” library. What put me over the top for the gig was the fact that i don’t waste my time with garbage licensing companies that pay no money up font. The library likes my music too, but you can’t get gigs on music quality alone. You have to be a brand. These royalty free companies are like the 99 cent store. You can’t get into Nordstroms if your brand is available at Woolworths..
@oontz/El Jol etc. Do you really seriously believe that ALL Royalty free music and ALL Royalty free companies are garbage. Are you guys on the same planet as the rest of us ? To make such a sweeping statement about 1000’s of tracks that you couldn’t possibly have listened to is beyond arrogant. Why do you get so uptight about this ?
No I don’t believe that all royalty free sites are garbage…when things are typed out it’s easy to lose context. Audiosparx and some others have stellar reputations..
I’m just refuting the “crap against the wall” strategy of sending music to every licensing company under the sun to hope something sticks for $25 once a year…
Instead of doing research, contacting, uploading and doing metadata for all royalty free, non-exclusive, retitling companies…if composers spent half of that time trying to contact “legacy” libraries that have budgets, they’d probably end up with more work then they could handle.
“legacy” libraries are always looking for fresh composers and sounds just like royalty-free sites. The difference is that “legacy” libraries pay good money upfront…
@oontz Fair point, thanks for clarification.
oontz onntz,
First, congrats on your gig to do a boat load of tracks!
You said”
>No I don’t believe that all royalty free sites are garbage…when things are typed out it’s easy to lose context. Audiosparx and some others have stellar reputations..
I’m just refuting the “crap against the wall” strategy of sending music to every licensing company under the sun to hope something sticks for $25 once a year…These royalty free companies are like the 99 cent store. You can’t get into Nordstroms if your brand is available at Woolworths..<
But the reverse isn't true. The 99 cent stores gladly sell Nordstroms overstock! Whereupon the 99 cent store customers think they are getting a real deal.
@El Jol
Man, you brought me down, but I will not give up. Someday, I’m gonna make Youtube with one of my tracks, you’ll see …
p.s. I just needed to post something so I could check the notify me box for this string LOL
A short mail from Audiosparx bestseller.
I read alot of nonsense here on MLR and most topics seem to get hijacked by the same guys over and over again.
But since you comment my work i’d better reply…
I am not a library writer and never will be. I write and record whatever i like and feel like.
People pay me for this and i travel all around the world with my music. I do the best i can and constantly learn! I had no proper music education and learned all myself. I have no need to become the next Hans Zimmer but just want to write and record the best i can.
I love all music and i can do songs, dance, pop, rock, orchestral etc, etc…
Since i do well with my music and sell loads of tracks i guess something must be good about it. I feel my music is real and honest and people feel this too. They like to have my music with their product and that’s a cool thing! Makes me proud.
i simply love music, production, gear and everything in between.
My advice: work hard, have fun, enjoy and stop complaining!
Cheers
Erwin
@Erwin
The thread was not about you and/or AudioSparx. It mentioned AudioSparx “Best Sellers” — plural. There was no mention or inference as to whether AudioSparx “Best Sellers” — plural — are good or bad. In fact, I told YOU previously that I think YOUR work is good. I base that on 30 years experience writing library music, scoring documentary films and many other things. Your music and production values are a good. That is evidence that quality does matter, will get noticed and succeed on a mega-site like AudioSparx.
I was asking the original poster how HE defines quality, because he made an issue of it. Denis Woods and I have both posted comments AGAINST judging others’ music. So — nobody was judging or commenting on your music.
You said:
“I love all music and i can do songs, dance, pop, rock, orchestral etc, etc…
Since i do well with my music and sell loads of tracks i guess something must be good about it.”
You write in many styles. You write what you “feel like writing”….
Congratulations — you ARE a library writer — you just happen to do other things as well!
you said:
“My advice: work hard, have fun, enjoy and stop complaining!”
You’re correct. That was the point of the thread.
Best,
Michael
“Your argument, correct me if I’m wrong, is that 10 minute loops-based wonders are flooding the market and making it harder on everybody else” – MichaelL
Not exactly MichaelL. The “10 minute looped-base wonders” are flooding the libraries. When library searches are being done by clients often several pages of tracks appear – regardless of genre.
For instance; I’ve done some piano lounge tracks. I did a search on one of the libraries yesterday for this genre. A couple hundred tracks came up on the search. I listened to about 15-20 of them. Not one of them was a piano lounge track (or even a lounge track). That’s what I mean by flooding.
Probably a client grew tired of listening to all the looped-base electronic music and never got to mine (page 3 on the search). I have nothing against looped-base music. I use loops occasionally. But the loopers are burying my tracks inappropriately in searches.
@John (the other John) said:
“For instance; I’ve done some piano lounge tracks. I did a search on one of the libraries yesterday for this genre. A couple hundred tracks came up on the search. I listened to about 15-20 of them. Not one of them was a piano lounge track (or even a lounge track). That’s what I mean by flooding.”
By “piano lounge tracks” do you mean the “cocktail” style of piano the was popular in the 1950’s — like Eddy Duchin and Carmen Cavallero? Are you aware that there is a sub-genre of electronica also called “lounge” — like Thievery Corporation?
I don’t think the issue here is one of the libraries being flooded by loop-based electronica — it’s one of nomenclature. Lounge (chill) is clearly a term that is now more associated with electronica than a jazz style piano — at least as far as search engines are concerned.
Try using jazz piano, cocktail piano or piano bar instead. Don’t blame the musicians if the search engine isn’t working.
Yes, it’s cocktail style piano MichaelL. And yes, I’m aware or “Electronica Lounge”. I just did one this morning for a client.
This “description” issue is probably a library issue, though many libraries today asks the composer to do the descriptions. And many, many descriptions are way off base, thus flooding occurs. 😀
And further to what MichaelL was saying: if the problem is, as you say, that “The “10 minute looped-base wonders” are flooding the libraries. When library searches are being done by clients often several pages of tracks appear – regardless of genre.”
…then you should be blaming the library for being so disorganized and for having such a bad search feature, and for categorizing them so badly.
And then you should also be looking for a quality library which doesn’t allow itself to be flooded by (let’s at least agree on this) looped crap! They do exist and it sounds like your music would be better off in one of those.
P.S MichaelL: I’ve also noticed that lounge as a category is now for electronic chill out music, in fact it seems to have been that way for a good 10 years.
@John (the other John) said:
“This “description” issue is probably a library issue, though many libraries today asks the composer to do the descriptions. And many, many descriptions are way off base, thus flooding occurs.”
A search engine is only going to be as good as the metadata. “Lounge” is no longer a term that I would associate with 1950’s cocktail piano.
I do not believe that flooding occurs because of “off base” descriptions. Flooding, which I assume you to mean the number of tracks, probably occurs for two reasons: 1) the number of artists who primarily work in that genre is high, and 2) mutli-genre library writers contribute to the pool, because they perceive a particular genre’s current popularity.
As I said, I’m guessing that if you used description like jazz piano, cocktail piano and piano bar that you would be buried under fewer pages — at least of electronica.
AND, as @Anon said — it would help to be in a library where you are not just another snowflake in a blizzard.
In the alternative, throw a string pad and drum loop onto your track, call it electronic chill and jump into the flood. 😉
“Library music IS a business. Its purpose is to make money. Art is something completely different. If you don’t think so, send a few of library pieces over to the composition department at Juilliard for an opinion. Even the highest quality library music wouldn’t be considered high brow in those hallowed halls” – MichaelL
I beg to differ MichaelL. There are high caliber, low caliber, and every level of musicianship in between with tracks in music libraries. Even on AudioSparx there are Symphony conductors with full symphony orchestra arrangements.
There is such a large diversity of music for film and TV. That’s what lured me into the music library business – the diversity. One can take pride in his/her music library tracks.
Funny you mentioned the Juilliard School. An acquaintance of mine graduated from Juilliard (actually two acquaintances), and one of them have music in music libraries.
“If you don’t think so, send a few of library pieces over to the composition department at Juilliard for an opinion. Even the highest quality library music wouldn’t be considered high brow in those hallowed halls.” Michael
With all due respect Michael, listening to most offereings coming out of the academic, ie CRAPademic, world I’ve come to the conclusion that Julliard or any other so-called prestigious institute of enlightened thinking is no authority figure on what is art and what isn’t. I would trust the opinion of some random screener at any respectable library over what the academic world thinks any day.
However, I do agree with you that there is more business than music in the music business but music libraries are one of those rare businesses where the two can co-exist relatively peacefully. Go ahead and write all the artsy fartsy tracks you want and there’s quite a few libraries out there that will let you park them at their site because, in this business, nobody knows what the next fad is going to be. Where business tends to foul things up is when they recognize a trend and beat it to death in an effort to squeez as much money out of it as they can making that trend cliche. The artist fouls it up when he is obsessed with creating something that the general public doesn’t care about and won’t pay for it.
“However, I do agree with you that there is more business than music in the music business but music libraries are one of those rare businesses where the two can co-exist relatively peacefully” – sonicpsyops
I can live with that. Well said!
@sonicpsyops: you misinterpreted what I was saying. I totally agree with you. I was just playing devil’s advocate with John (the Other John). AND, I do not write anything close to “artsy fartsy.” I’ve written library music and film scores for 30 years.
When I was looking at colleges and choosing a major, back in the dark ages, I went to hear a concert of music written by the head of the composition department. It was such mediocre, unlistenable garbage that I chose not to go to that school. Years later, the Dean of the school, who was a friend, said that he agreed completely. The composition professor’s work was horrible. My point is that academics often write inaccessible music (what you call crap) AND they often look down on those of us who actually write FOR the audience. They have an attitude, which is what John (TOJ) appears to have, a bit of.
I take issue with John (TOJ)’s generalization regarding loops etc. and “quality” music. There are some amazing tools out there, and I see no reason to not use them. Very often the results are better than if you do not. Why not use something like BFD drums? What you get is far better than anything that I would program with a keyboard, like ghost notes. I use Orchestral tools “Orchestral String Runs. Sure it’s uses pre-recorded runs, but they are better than anything that I would program.
I don’t know John (TOJ)’s music. But, I doubt that it could actually be replaced/displaced by a “10 minute” loop-based wonder. However, I do not know to what extent people are using loops to write in John’s style.
@John (the Other John) said:
“There are high caliber, low caliber, and every level of musicianship in between with tracks in music libraries. Even on AudioSparx there are Symphony conductors with full symphony orchestra arrangements.”
Yes, I know. The range of music reflects the needs and tastes of the audience/consumer/user. Your argument, correct me if I’m wrong, is that 10 minute loops-based wonders are flooding the market and making it harder on everybody else. My question is do you really think that the consumer/buyer who is looking for a “full symphony arrangement” is going to choose the loop instead?
I would argue that they are two different clients and that a low caliber loop will not displace the symphony.
This is the business part of it. There are 5 Star restaurants and there’s fast food. There is a market for both. Some people really like, perhaps prefer, fast food. The 5 Star restaurant isn’t losing any business to the fast food restaurant, because the demographics are different.
By analogy, I really doubt that your music is being displaced by 10 minute loop-based wonders. If that is the case, then it is because the loop and fx based track is what the client wants.
“Library music IS a business. Its purpose is to make money. Art is something completely different.” agree 100 %. It doesn’t mean that good music cant be library music or that bad music cant be art either.
Some of the comments in this thread remind me of 30 years ago when the symphony players and the older session drummers would not talk to us younger dudes with our Fairlights and Emulators etc, because they thought that their jobs were going to disappear.
Well their jobs didn’t disappear and lo and behold we made some great music with our new gear. Peter Gabriel ( is that artsy enough for you) Art of Noise, Trevor Horn, Daft Punk, Devo the list goes on and on . Maybe we should all record everything live to 2 track again just to prove a point. Its a totally Luddite perspective on the world.
Good or bad music is totally subjective. If you really are of the belief that good music can only be made by real musicians precluding anything else (loops/samples/fx etc)then you shouldn’t be in the music business at all, let alone the Library one. It a totally prejudiced and ill in formed view IMHO.
If any of the real music camp can come up with anything as good as Jason Livesay or Mark Petries/Gina Brigida’s stuff then please share it with us.
@Denis, if I’m ever in Ireland or you’re ever in my part of the US, we should definitely get together over a Guinness.
Are you going to buy the new Fairlight (17k)? LOL!
Cheers,
Michael
@MichaelL I thought that the Fairlight reissue was a joke. Crazy money. I used a Series 3 in the mid 80’s which cost £56.000 ster, probably close to $100,000 at the time. It was truly awful, samples weren’t phased locked, sequencer never worked etc,etc. Was super-ceded within 5 years by Emu and Akai. Strangely though it is still used by one of the biggest producers in the world for his drums (not stereo ones!!!) He has 2 on the go. He says he likes the sound of it, go figure. Yes we will have to meet up id either of us crosses the Atlantic LOL
>Ultimately the primary goal is money; sure, you may want some fame, recognition and fun,
To be honest, if you’re in library music for fame, recognition and fun, I’d suggest you’re in the wrong game 😉
>but it always boils down to money in the end. And for me, the better libraries are the ones which make me more money.
Never a truer word spoken !
>but it always boils down to money in the end. And for me, the better libraries are the ones which make me more money.<
There should be an MLR "better library" directory.
“To be honest, if you’re in library music for fame, recognition and fun, I’d suggest you’re in the wrong game” – darkstar
Funny, I’d say you’re in the wrong game if your main objective is money.
Hey! It’s all about the MUSIC!!! If you want to make money there are much better ways to make money. Start with Wall Street or climb the corporate ladder.
@John (the Other John)
I’m going to turn your logic on its head. Perhaps you’re in the the wrong game if you want to make art. There are a lot easier and less expensive ways to make art.
Library music IS a business. Its purpose is to make money. Art is something completely different. If you don’t think so, send a few of library pieces over to the composition department at Juilliard for an opinion. Even the highest quality library music wouldn’t be considered high brow in those hallowed halls.
My goodness. Are we back in 1980 or something? I really don’t know what library music you’ve been listening to Michael.
Please enlighten us.
@El Jol, I’m not quite sure what you mean by your response. I am fully aware the some library music is far better than it was 30 years ago. Some of it is also poorly written and poorly produced amateur stuff.
But..get one thing straight. I am NOT the one complaining about new technology, the state of library music. My posts are a RESPONSE to those who are complaining about new technology, and looking down their noses at music that employs new technology, fx etc.
I SUPPORT the variety and creativity that is out there. I use ALL of the tools that are available to me. For example, I just got the Izotope Stutter plug-in. AND if that helps me produce a track in 10 minutes, which is an exaggeration, then so be it. I also produce traditional high-end orchestration — and everything in between.
Read more closely or perhaps explain what you mean.
>Funny, I’d say you’re in the wrong game if your main objective is money.
Hey! It’s all about the MUSIC!!! If you want to make money there are much better ways to make money. Start with Wall Street or climb the corporate ladder.
Absolutely not.
My income from library music is about 3 or 4 times more than I made from my “regular” job.
And I get paid for doing something I love to do, as opposed to going out to do that regular job.
I think you seriously misunderstand the amount of money that is involved in the library business. And believe me, it is a business a very big business.
Darkstar has got it right. At least for me.
Maybe there are ‘better’ ways to earn money, but I don’t see one for myself. I would HATE to be climbing a corporate ladder, in fact I’d rather shoot myself than go into that world. So although I’m not making much yet from library music, it’s enough to live off just, and I much prefer to live with just enough while making music, than live with plenty but climb a corporate ladder to my certain, miserable death!!
In a way John, you have confused two ideas: It is not that I am making library music solely to make money, however, it IS still a business and money still matters. So within my desire of making music to make money, I therefore choose the libraries which make me the most. That doesn’t mean I should choose to hang myself on Wall Street instead.
@John (the Other John) said:
“Well, I hope the quantity attitude doesn’t become the norm Anon. I refuse to go that route….
I know; you’re making money. Big deal. The music is what’s really important. I can think of hundreds of easier ways to make money than to destroy the integrity of real music.”
Quantity has always been the norm. My mentor, a brilliant composer, told me more than 30 years ago that it takes quantity, not quality, to succeed in the library business. 30 years ago!!!
But what he meant by “quality” was was “serious” music (classical/jazz)compared to library music.
The difference between then and now is that then somebody else, HAD TO LIKE YOUR WORK enough to invest in it….to pay you to write music, and to pay for the production.
Today, anybody with a softsynth and a DAW can post crap until they’re blue in the face, no quality litmus test. (This of course doesn’t apply to libraries that still listen to music before they accept it.)
Quality, however, is a relative thing. What do you think is quality? I know what the best sellers on AudioSparx sound like. Is that quality? Do you know what Donn Wilkerson sounds like? He writes some of the best library music out there. AND he’s written hundred of tracks. Quantity AND quality. http://donnwilkerson.com/The_Music_Of_Donn_Wilkerson/Welcome.html
I wouldn’t lament too much John (TOJ). Quality matters. The library free-for-all will not last forever. Competition will force everyone to up their game or fall by the wayside. And by that I mean composers.
Here’s an interesting clip. Notice the part where the writer on camera says “you used to be able to get away with a piano and a string pad…not anymore”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoLDra97M2E&feature=related
Very interesting videos MichaelL. Thanks for sharing.
“Quality, however, is a relative thing. What do you think is quality?” – MichaelL
Difficult to put in words MichealL, but not difficult to recognize. Yes, Donn Wilkerson is quality.
Audio Sparx quality? Most of what I listened to, definitely not. But weaved in with all the “10 minute wonders” are some.
Since AudioSparx is mentioned several times here, I thought I would submit a few ideas for consideration.
With world-wide licensing trends constantly changing – and not every project requiring a full out orchestral production, we believe thoughtful composers can satisfy both quality and quantity if they are clever and creative, and have the latest tools for the job. AudioSparx composers are meeting these needs by whatever creative means are necessary – from using acoustic and indigenous instrumentation, orchestral or synth loops, exotic vocal samples, wild SFX (including pots and pans for a cooking show track), and much more.
While we have a lot of Classical and Orchestral music, we encourage our composers to have fun and push their boundaries on creativity and originality, by exploring and fusing new genres, and definitely stepping up their game to remain competitive in a business where available music greatly outpaces worldwide need.
While likes and dislikes in music can be subjective, here are a few tracks our clients are using in their productions. We are a growing and expanding site, and would love to hear from you if you write music that is consistently:
Creepier than this: http://www.audiosparx.com/sa/archive/Dramatic/Production-Dark-Music/Ghosts-in-the-Twilight-60sec/375355
Sadder, more poignant than this: http://www.audiosparx.com/sa/archive/Dramatic/Production-Romantic-Music/The-Lost-Puppy/413494
More heartwarming than this: http://www.audiosparx.com/sa/archive/Dramatic/Production-Heartwarming-Music/Symphonia-Americana/400828
More wondrous and magical than this: http://www.audiosparx.com/sa/archive/Dramatic/Production-Regal-Music/Hidden-World/268658
Cheesier than this: http://www.audiosparx.com/sa/archive/Dramatic/Production-Romantic-Music/Cheesy-Romance/446063
Or more mischievous than this: http://www.audiosparx.com/sa/archive/Dramatic/Production-Action-Pending-Music/The-Good-The-Bad-and-the-Pretty/403546
If you think your tracks are better than our BEST SELLERS at AudioSparx, in any given genre, why not consider letting us represent you. It is no secret that our top selling composers thrive on competition.
Here’s a link for your review: http://www.audiosparx.com/alliance/
Cheers,
Barbie
http://www.audiosparx.com/
@Barbie,
With all due respect, I believe that you misunderstood the thread a bit. It is not a critique of the music on AudioSparx. The genesis of the original thread was the poster’s frustration with a “flooded” market. AudioSparx was merely used as a default example of a library with 100,000 + tracks in it.
If you follow the thread further, you will find that the OP was frustrated because when he searched for his “lounge” piano music, its was buried under three pages of electronica. His “lounge” music it turns out is 1950’s piano jazz. Because the current use of term “lounge” applies more to chill electronica, I suggested that he adjust his metadata.
The issue of quality arose as a general discussion about the proliferation/flood of music produced using technology that allows some writers to produce tracks in “10 minutes.”
I DO NOT make any value judgments in that area. I’ve seen some highly skilled people do amazing things quickly. That can be product of knowledge and preparation. On the other hand, some writers clearly produce as much as they can, as quickly as they can without regard to quality. This bottom-line approach, I believe bothers the OP because he takes great pride in his work.
The reference to “orchestral” music, and academic music vs. library music is just rhetorical to put some perspective on the musical food-chain (and the potential irony of one library composer looking down on other library composers, when there are those who look down on us). However, the point was that this is library music and it is a business and the OP should not be offended by people whose use of technology enables them to work quickly.
The quality on AudioSparx was not really part of the discussion, the quantity is. The quality is as varied as your composers. It covers the map. AudioSparx is not alone in this regard.
Without offending anyone’s composition/artistic talents, there are quantifiable means of measuring a tracks quality outside the composition itself, such as use of high-end sounds, level of engineering/mastering etc.
You asked:
“If you think your tracks are better than our BEST SELLERS at AudioSparx, in any given genre, why not consider letting us represent you. It is no secret that our top selling composers thrive on competition.”
This is where quantity is an issue. The concern raised by John (the Other John) is that the buyer often has to sift through pages and pages of cues before finding the one that may be better than your “best sellers.” At that point, it’s not really about competition or quality, it’s about the buyer moving on before they even get to your cue.
So, even if someone has a creepier, sadder, more wondrous/magical, more cheesy or more mischievous track, when a hundred similar tracks turn up in the search results, how would anyone know? You have to hope that the buyer is going to listen to all of them before making a decision.
Just to add my perceptive on this one and I will use Audiosparx as an example, only because I sell on the site and do very well on it. Any site that has 400,000 tracks on it without being organized or even prioritized in some way will be chaotic. What Audiosparx does is
1. They feature a new Artist when they first join, this gives your profile and tracks promotion. I sold 2 tracks within the first 10 days on the site as a complete newbie. I have been on there 10 months now.
2. If you have enough tracks online you become a featured artist. This will give you further promo.
3. You can have tracks features as “Music Editor picks” which will give them promo.
4. If you sell a track you are featured on the front page
(Barbie please correct if wrong, I am doing this from memory)
So taking this into account its not like throwing a track into mass of 400.000 others and hoping it will sell. I would be very wary if that was the case too as any composer should. We need to be careful here in throwing about generalizations about any Libraries, it leads to confusion and misinformation which is bad for composers and Libraries.
On the broader question of Art or Noise I dont judge other peoples music especially Library music which in most cases is of secondary importance to the Film/Website/Product. I dont really care if they have 400,000 or 4000 tracks as long as they are successful.
Audiosparx or any other successful library has a model which works for them, if i am not successful on those libraries it might be that maybe my music is not suited for them or i haven’t tagged my tracks correctly ( the “Lounge” example is a good one). If I was successful in every Library I am in I would be very happy, that just doesn’t happen in the real world.
@Denis
The “lounge” example just shows how crucial metadata is to finding the right track, in addition to all of the promotional opportunities that you mention.
I agree with you. I try not to judge other OPM (other people’s music) especially when it comes to library music.
This is going to really offend some… there is an “art” to writing library music, but is not ART in the “grand sense.” It IS a business. That may bother some writers, because there are writers who are only pursuing their ART, who are using the libraries as one means of promoting their work. That’s fine, but it’s not the same as being a library composer by profession. Library composers write in “styles.” We do a lot of imitation. Even John (the other John) would likely agree that his cocktail jazz piano cue is not “art” on the level of Oscar Peterson.
We are at an unusual place in this business now, because the concept of licensing as a means of promoting oneself as an artist is relatively new. So, on this site and in online libraries, like AudioSparx, you have a confluence of two worlds: professional library composers and genre specific artists….which is another discussion.
Library pros need quantity AND quality. Writing quality can be subjective, but production quality is less so. There is a discernible difference between high end sample libraries like East West and budget sample libraries, like Garritan. To think otherwise is delusional. There’s a discernible difference between a reverb like Altiverb and the one that came packaged with your DAW. There’s a discernible difference between a mastered and an unmastered track.
With respect to quality, it’s a mistake to go down the road of arguing good music vs. bad music. Because, as Denis said, the music is secondary to the film/website/product, you cannot second guess the client’s taste and needs.
Perhaps that is wherein the difference between library writers and “artists” lies. We’re used to, and accept the notion that our music is secondary, while artists perceive their music as primary.
@ MichaelL Absolutely , and well put. I am a Library music composer not an Artist as defined
by your post.
The convergence of the two is commercial as-well, there are a lot of shows using contemporary songs in them MTV etc which come from new artists and bands. This is Licensing too and a lot of libraries are including vocal cues.
To be a successful Library composer you do need to embrace all styles of music and exploit the ones you are good and competent at doing.
Its good to be self critical and realistic, I cannot do orchestral writing to the standard that is required. Donn Wilkerson (great stuff btw) Jason Livesay, Mark Petrie all are masters at this. That does not preclude me from doing orchestral type cues that are very genre specific (Action/Chase) if I need to. Does it concern that I am not being a purist to achieve a result that I am happy with as-well as my client ? No, absolutely not.
I had the great privilege of working with Elmer Bernstien on a few movies he did here. The best lesson I ever learnt. He would completely disassemble a cue and use a gazoo if the director wanted. He was not precious/arrogant or protective about his music. He understood what role his music played in the film, it was a supporting one. In saying all of this, he probably was an Artist he was so good at it. LOL
@Denis
Bernstein was great. He was right — no room for prima donnas.
I am familiar with Jason Livesay. Have you seen the videos of his live act with his brother — two violins?
Thanks for the tip on Mark Petrie, I hadn’t heard of him. Great stuff.
We should get Skype and share a video Guinness!
Cheers,
Michael
“He was not precious/arrogant or protective about his music. He understood what role his music played in the film, it was a supporting one” (about Elmer Bernstien) – Denis Woods
Yes, but film music can be interesting, melodic, memorable, and “stand-alone” as well as being supportive to the film. Thus, why soundtracks to movies are sold.
Think about On Golden Pond, Breakfast at Tiffany’s (and all Mancini soundtracks), Halloween, Love Story, Star Wars (and all the John Williams soundtracks), James Bond, Wizard of Oz, Rocky, Psycho, Gone with the Wind, West Side Story, etc, etc, etc… – just to name a few off the cuff.
The music to these films are stand-alone gems that carry through the film from start to finish. Sometimes more enjoyable than the film. But the point being; music in libraries doesn’t have to fit just the one criterion of being supportive.
Then on the other hand a single-noted drab pad/loop will never be memorable, melodic, interesting, or stand-alone – just slightly supportive. Kind of a lazy man’s method of accumulating a thousand saleable tracks for mundane scenes and TV applications. Yes, in this case, it is all about the money.
@ John (the other John)
Of course film music can be memorable, my point was the one of the greatest film composers of all time knew what his gig was, and I would bet he would use loops/samples or anything else in the sonic arsenal to create a score, He wasn’t precious about how to achieve it.
Lets not forget that Bernard Hermann’\s Psycho was the first score not to use brass, that raised a few purists eyebrows at the time too.
My fundamental difference with you is I believe in the ability/possibility of anybody to create music. If that means that there are loads of “10 min wonders” out there I dont care. I dont believe its necessary to have any formal musical training to write music either. I dont believe it devalues music or affects me in any way at all. I simply don’t judge it. If a client prefers it to some epic i have written, so be it. I am really not that insecure.
A whole generation of composers have come up in the last 20 years who have utilized technology as their primary compositional tool, to diss or to dismiss it is to alienate and insult the whole genre of Rap/Hip hop/Dance music and a whole generation who live this music.
I like Erwin do what I do and thankfully some people like it. I use my meagre ability to produce music that is licensable so I can make a living out of it, Its that simple really.
I have no problem being called a Library composer either, thats what I do and the reason I contribute here.
I have done many other things too such as producing records and playing/programming on numerous records. I have also written scores for Film and TV. I am certainly not an expert on anything but my own experience, and have only taken to library music in the last 10 months or so after a major exclusive publishing contract had expired and gave me the opportunity to do this. So I am on a learning curve too !!!!!
@ Denis Woods
Just want to make the record clear before more words are placed in my mouth (or insinuated) that I haven’t said. I believe in a free market – foremost! Any product (that doesn’t harm people) deserves equal opportunity in the marketplace.
I’m speaking more in terms of what I personally believe constitutes good music. I’ve stated that I’ve used loops (have nothing against them). Some composers make fine music utilizing loops and today’s technology.
I don’t particularly like music creators flooding the market with “10 minute wonders” that aren’t musical or creative, but I’d defend their right to do so.
I’m just sharing my opinion. It’s the only one I have. 😀
@John(the other John)
The fatal flaw in your logic is that you seem to assume that there is only one market, when in fact there are many.
The market for 1950’s cocktail piano, which you called “lounge” is not the same as the market for chill electronica, known as lounge. The proliferation of chill / lounge may make it difficult to find your track. But, I would argue that no one bought a chill lounge track instead of your cocktail piano track.
Conversely, if you tagged your cue as jazz/cocktail piano, I doubt that any chill electronica would turn up in the search.
Why blame the producers of what you call “10-minute wonders” because the term lounge now applies more to their music than yours?
By the way, what would be the difference between a piece of electronica done in 10 minutes and a cocktail jazz improve done in 10 minutes? — other than your prejudice as to the musical value of one vs. the other?
“The fatal flaw in your logic is that you seem to assume that there is only one market, when in fact there are many” – MichaelL
I assumed that? I think I’m a little more aware of the music market than you’re giving me credit for. 😀 Besides, I think we settled this “lounge” issue. I agreed/ concluded that my search worked much better when narrowing down the keywords.
“By the way, what would be the difference between a piece of electronica done in 10 minutes and a cocktail jazz improve done in 10 minutes? — other than your prejudice as to the musical value of one vs. the other?” – MichaelL
MichaelL, I think you realize my objective of the term “10 minute wonders”. It was only to convey how quickly (and with minimal knowledge) a looped track can be created. Also keep in mind that a 10 minute produced cocktail jazz improv is not really created in 10 minutes, but the result of years of practicing and study.
@John (the other John) said:
“Think about On Golden Pond, Breakfast at Tiffany’s (and all Mancini soundtracks), Halloween, Love Story, Star Wars (and all the John Williams soundtracks), James Bond, Wizard of Oz, Rocky, Psycho, Gone with the Wind, West Side Story, etc, etc, etc… – just to name a few off the cuff.”
While we’re on the subject, don’t overlook John Barry, who passed away this week. And if memorable melody is what you like, you cannot surpass Ennio Morricone.
I found your “lounge” cue — if I’ve got the right John. It’s a nice track. Not as cheesy as one might associate with piano bar. A little touch of McPartland.
I’m going to stop arguing with you over the “10-minute wonders.” If I’ve got the right John, we live in the same snowy/rainy/icy Commonwealth. Can’t rag on a fellow statesman. 😉
You seem to like Jazz and obviously “quality” music. Ever been to the Deer Head?
“I’m going to stop arguing with you over the “10-minute wonders.” If I’ve got the right John, we live in the same snowy/rainy/icy Commonwealth. Can’t rag on a fellow statesman.” – Michael
😀 Well, if I happen to be that John… that John wants to thank you for keeping him anonymous. 🙂
Yeah, a lot of great musicians pass through the doors of the Dear Head.
I reckon this ends “the case of the 10 minute wonders”. Case closed, next case. 😀
@John (TOJ)
If you are that John, anonymous you shall remain.
Best of luck with your tracks.
Cheers,
Michael
“If you are that John, anonymous you shall remain.
Best of luck with your tracks.
Cheers, Michael”
John thanks you again MichaelL. Best of luck to you as well.
John
Why doesn’t audiosparx screen any of the music coming in? I would think that it could be detrimental to their business that they don’t. Though there is quality in the mix, there’s also too much non-quality-garageband produced music. I’m more loyal to the libraries that have say 10,000 tracks (organized into albums)of pre-screened quality material. I know what I’m getting each time a new album is released without having to go through a cluster of material that doesn’t have the quality I’m looking for. It just makes it seem like quantity is more important than quality to audiosparx.
BTW I don’t consider screening an artist/composer 1 time, really screening. I could spend a whole week tweaking a piece to make it sound stellar, just to get accepted into the system. Then I could just mail it all in from there. Not good quality control.
@Just a Thought
This thread is not about AudioSparx, and should not be construed as such. At the heart of the discussion is quality vs. quantity — in general.
To be specific, the OP takes great pride in his work and in crafting his tracks. He seems frustrated by the “flood” of tracks, that he perceives to be produced quickly, just to place product into the market.
There are all levels and quality of music, just as there are all levels of end user. The the trick is matching the two.
MichaelL and I are on the same page here. It’s not about Audio Sparx. Sorry I used them as an example. Audio Sparx has a huge diversity of music. And Barbie is as dedicated as they come.
And MichaelL was correct. I narrowed the description down and came up with much better results.
Ok, maybe we can have that moved to another thread? I was simply questioning why a music library would not screen the music they are representing. And not from a composers point of view but from an editors point of view. Maybe I shouldn’t have used them as an example but I happened to come across this discussion which mentioned quality and quantity and thought I’d let some people know my thoughts from this side of the biz.
Is what they’re doing not quantity over quality?
@Just a thought
Your right you should ask this question on the Audiosparx thread. I certainly dont know the answer and the answer. that should be the one of record, should be from the library themselves, not conjecture by anyone else..
Right, I realize that. That’s why I said maybe it should be moved. Maybe Art could move it. I thought this discussion was about quality vs. quantity. Since audiosparx was mentioned several times and even Barbie contributed I brought up my thoughts on the subject. Sorry, I really didn’t think I was that off topic.
To “Just a thought” — every question is legitimate if it helps composers and websites achieve some clarity or help each other. FYI, for one year we have reviewed all applicants, declining those for whom quality or originality seemed an issue. We do believe a site can have both quality and quantity, as can individual composers. Our top sellers have an average of +500 tracks each, and our clients seem to like this variety – plus the way we have it organized.
And for new composers, our client-friendly search engines allow a client to sort by “recently added” and hear the cue you just uploaded this morning. As each track sells it gets featured around our site, as Denis pointed out, and can become a best seller. Clients can search using 17 filters, or they can sort by “best selling” and quickly license what they need. Featured artists’ music rises to the top in all searches, so any composer can become successful if our client base likes their music.
Okay, I’m bowing out — just wanted to respond to a few concerns.
Barbie