Comments on: Partners in Rhyme

By: MichaelL

MichaelL — Sun, 06 Mar 2011 21:25:20 +0000

Please Login to view this Content. (Not a member? Join Today!)

By: Ruth

Ruth — Sun, 06 Mar 2011 20:12:35 +0000

Please Login to view this Content. (Not a member? Join Today!)

By: Musicman

Musicman — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 17:59:02 +0000

Please Login to view this Content. (Not a member? Join Today!)

By: El Jol

El Jol — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 16:28:08 +0000

I don't see any of the libraries I write for worried by the low brow libraries. There's plenty of organizations that need great music rather than mediocre music. Which is perhaps why my earnings have continued to rise even in the climate of mass proliferation of low brow libraries. They are working on a different level - and on that level they can be moderately succesful with a few placements here and there - that seems to keep the troops happy enough. But ain't no time soon you're gonna see BBC doc makers running to suchandsuchroyaltyfree for their music.

By: Anon

Anon — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 12:28:22 +0000

Ok John, you may have something there. I am sure some low brow libraries are damaging the premium libraries. I could say that only those who adapt will thrive, but I don't know, maybe you're right. It is much easier for people to churn out looped tracks in a short time these days.. However, calling on composers to maintain the integrity of music is a bit like calling on bankers to maintain the integrity of the markets. Look how that worked out !!! There will always be people who are in it just for profit, so it's unavoidable that we have these quickly hashed together tracks...

By: John (the other John)

John (the other John) — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 10:52:29 +0000

Okay Anon, so we disagree, big deal. But when the market is flooded with "10 minute wonders", is the client really finding what he wants or just settling? BTW, I just had a talk with an exclusive library owner yesterday that I've been with for a long time. He told me the non-exclusive generic libraries are killing his business. Many clients will settle for inferior music just to save a buck . Could it be the composer's responsibility to set a standard of quality, or just go along with the flow (of 10 minute wonders)?

By: Anon

Anon — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 10:27:59 +0000

John, You have inferred a great deal from my post which is flat out incorrect and unfair. 1. I did not anywhere state that I have made these tracks with loops or samples as the core of the track. 2. Just supposing someone does use a loop or sample as the core of their track. Perhaps they are still proud of it. 3. You say "The day quantity becomes more important than quality will be the end of music making.". That day has already been and gone, LONG ago - in some circles. HOWEVER, if you make 'quality' tracks, and even that's just an opinion, then you can place them in 'quality' libraries - and if you do, you can expect to make considerably more money. There is a market for quantity and there is a market for quality. You can do one, both or you can just moan and do neither. Ultimately, in any business there is supply and demand, and there are clients who want nothing more than a simple loopy garbage track and don't want to pay more than $10 for it. You can't argue with them, you can't 'tell them' to buy quality music. That is the whole point of a market. We can complain all we want that this is destroying music's integrity, but that doesn't change anything. Remember, the customer is always right - when you're in a business situation. And library music is exactly that: hard business. Pure music and artistry, and I stress 'pure', is reflected in many ways, but I would not consider library music as one of them. As I believe MichaelL said recently, what kind of composer sits down and imagines a scene of a silly traveller dropping their visa card, but then thanking their insurance company, as inspiration for their next track? So my advice to you is, if you do make quality music, seek out the libraries that sell quality music for a premium. They're not hard to find. Place your music with them, sit back and relax. Someone somewhere else may be selling loops at $10 a pop, but what do you care?

By: John (the other John)

John (the other John) — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 19:07:12 +0000

Well, I hope the quantity attitude doesn't become the norm Anon. I refuse to go that route. I haven't placed anything in any library that I'm not proud of. The day quantity becomes more important than quality will be the end of music making. Those music creators that flood the market with mindless sfx's and looped tracks are burying the quality tracks in libraries. No wonder the clients grow tired of searching for the best tracks and settling with the generic 10 minute put-togethers. By the way, I'm all for this new technology. Great samples, effects, and even loops can add a new dimension to real music. But as embellishments, not the main course. 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. Reality check: ask yourself what you can accomplish without your DAW, loops, samples, and all the other goodies that great minds have put together for you.

By: Anon

Anon — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 15:16:00 +0000

Some good points, but I can't help coming on to say that I've had some tracks which I've knocked out in a couple of days go on to make $1,000s whilst plenty of my tracks which I spent months on have made me not even 10% of that. And as Matt on here has shown through evidence, it really is about quantity. A certain level of quality is a prerequisite, but after that it's just a matter of how many you can churn out and in how many genres. After all, this is 'library' music.

By: El Jol

El Jol — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 07:40:56 +0000

Interesting read. Mark has certainly had some stick here! I checked out the PIR site and can't understand what all the fuss is about. You have to respect anyone who makes a success out of something when, let's be honest, in the grand scheme of things the product isn't that great (i.e.the tracks I checked out were heavily quantised with unreal instruments). That's not necessarily a bad thing - horses for courses and all that. It fits a niche for budget music and there is more and more demand for such. As a consequence, composers these days scenting any kind of placement opportunity in this competitive market persues the library in question as if their lives depended on it. With that comes hope and expectation as one waits to be 'approved'. So it hits you hard when you get rejected and it is easy to turn one's angst against the 'rejector' - i.e. Mark. Who, to his great credit, has taken alot of stick on here but always comes on to defend his company with passion. I admire that. Composers take rejection personally but in the end it's just a business decision that has to be made. But I also think alot of would-be-library-composers need a reality check. If they get rejected they should use this as an opportunity to rethink what they do and the way they do it (FWIW past rejections have helped me to progress alot). I think alot of the time, composers or would be composers don't set their bar very high in terms of originality, sound quality, instrumentation and attention to detail. Just talking generally now and not about PIR - I think maybe nowadays composing mediocre music is just too easy. You can knock up a track in 10 minutes. The emphasis seems to be very much on quantity. Be nice to hear something fresh and new once in a while. Just IMO of course.