KDM - I really feel for you. I am trying to keep on the side of legal (instead of using my 600+ CD collection or iTunes stuff) with royalty free stuff. As an amateur, my budget is whatever is left over after the bills are paid (and that paycheck doesn't always meet all of them).

However, when it comes time (and I have some extra $$$) and I want to record a song I have written, I go to a professional composer/arranger (whom I can afford - no big time folks here). Yes it costs a bundle (anywhere from $250 - $500) but I get something I am proud of rather than a crappy piece thrown together by a non-professional.

It would be great if everyone at the top wasn't only interested in the bottom line - then maybe all those under them could actually make some $$$ too.

Sigh.....

Music is more than an accompaniment for film. Music complements the editing when it is specially composed, but library tracks must be accommodated. So people like Spot and John, who can compose and play their own music, are especially fortunate. Why are people, who could afford to pay, resorting to loops and clipart? Rampart amateurism perhaps made "credible" by digital technology. My own opinion places some responsibility on pop music and pop art that encourages the view that anyone could do that.

The video market isn't great here either - TV ad rates are below average even for a city of this size.

I guess it's all part of the technology boom - it's easier and cheaper to do what we do via less expensive options, so that's what happens.

Birdcat - you make a good point. Usually most budgets are estimated for video only, even with large production houses. Few I've talked to even know how to pitch the advantages of original music, and therein lies part of the problem. A customer won't ask for, or budget for what he or she doesn't know will help them. A great film is dry, or even dead without a great soundtrack. Likewise even for commercial spots - just a bed with some blaring horns and upbeat music doesn't set the client apart from any car dealership, regardless of the industry. Matching cues doesn't happen as creatively and neither does creating a musical identity.

Libraries are selling cheap because that market is saturating too - with composers and producers that can't get steady original commissioned work, or figure that it's a quicker way to make a little money. I try to work with whatever budget the client has as there are a lot of ways I can approach a composition, but that is seldom more than $100, and that isn't worth my time. I've considered creating a library myself, but that too would simply hasten the demise of my part of the industry.

At least using royalty free music, whether CD library or online, is the ethical way to approach music. Certainly using commercial artists' CD tracks isn't the right way to go (I've heard a few show up on local TV spots here, usually during late, low rate hours).

The only problem with this is that there really isnt much lost art. Its not like it was 20 eyars ago. Back then, to have a home recording studio/editing bay was definitely not the norm. Now, everyone and their mom can afford to record their song or edit their blockbuster movie. The difference being the quality of the final output. Obviously those well trained produce better material than hobbyists.

With that said, why should people feel compelled to spend more coin on something that they can get done for a lot less cheaper which translates into a healthier bottom line? While I do identify with your plight, the sad fact that is LOST on artists today is that if you hold out your work, I can always find something cheaper to fill the space. May not be as good but with the ever impending decline of true art forms, would it really mean that much of a difference in sales?

Let me give you an example. Im producing Project A and I have $500K budget. Whatever is leftover is mine. So I have a choice. Spend $30k for some drop songs or spend $500 for music that will fill my need and pocket the other $29,500. No brainer.

This industry is NO different than all the other industries. As time goes by, people will lower thier costs in order to keep working. They will undercut their competition. Is it fair? Not really. Is it smart? Arguable. But the fact is those that undercut, still work and still get to eat. So while some may decide to not "sell out" for lower paying gigs, they are the ones who are hurting for work. They will be the ones who run out of food first.

Look back at music industry. There was a time when people actually performed on the piano. Not a bad way to make a living. Then came the piano roll. All of sudden, the player was no longer needed for his skills. He was undercut by a piece of material pre-grooved to play songs. He was out of a job.

Even the IT industry has suffered the same fate. Software has become more sophisticated that a once $50k/yr IT guy who sat and monitored the network for problems has been replaced by software that can do the same tasks at a fraction of the cost. I know, I was that guy who was replaced.

Even us on the forum that edit for a living has replaced those that were highly skilled at cutting film. With the increase in video, we are coming very close to the days of film being numbered. So should we keep giving those film cutters work because we can afford it? Heck no.

What happens in 5 years when my business slows considerably because everyone can do what I do for a lesser cost? The money I can save now will provide for me then and allow me to adapt. If I blow a wad now because I can afford it, I wont have the cash flow later on when I may possibly need it.

Now heres my reason for using original content. Simply, to offer something that someone else doesnt. If everyone owns Smartsound, at some point, everyone would have heard my background music in some other flick. Not too original. But if I find a hot band or artist that no one has used, I would be more inclined to throw more coin because being original is more important.

Every industry is either dying, merging, or evolving. Its called change and adapting to it. We all have to it especially with the way technology has evolved. But in all honesty, if it comes down to me being able to feed my family or giving some starving artist some work that I could save $$$ by using a soundbank, sorry, let him starve.

If the artist is truly any good, they will still find work. They have to out hustle the new generation in the industries. If they cant do that, then it really doesnt matter just how good they are.

Just wanted to add a couple comments.

The reason people turn to libraries is because of the ridiculous amounts charged for needle drops. On a project I am working on, It would cost me $25k to use three Nickleback songs. If they didnt overcharge, perhaps more would be inclined to invest in true composers or artists.

The reason why major companies are using sound libraries is because at the rate content is being produced, they dont care about the true artistic or entertainment value. Look at the MTV editing and you see it everywhere. Look at reality television. Everyones doing it.

I agree art forms have seriously declined but thats the world we live in today. Most of the current generation would rather watch Napolean Dynamite and claim how brilliant it was instead of watching Goodfellas or Citizen Kane for a well written, well told, and well produced films. When companies can churn out crappy movies like Scary Movie, Date Movie, etc... and make a golden buck, then you know true art forms have declined.

You are referring to royalty rates and licensing issues, not composer rates. Licensing a commercially successful song is quite expensive - upwards of $100k+ or more for a feature film and a top 100 song. Needle drops are traditionally music taken form buyout libraries, which here average $75 per. These aren't commercial songs - just library tracks produced for several grand, hoping to make it back with $50-$100 buyout CDs. That's what is killing composers, not Britney Spears, Nickleback or Josh Grobin.

Composer rates are usually more in line with the scope and reach of the project - certainly high for feature films depending on the composer's success, but the per minute rate for a corporate promo isn't nearly as costly as paying licensing for a commercial pop song (my rates are much more reasonable than buying a Nickleback song, but it is quite a bit more than $75). A commercial song isn't written to cues - it's just there to provide identifiability with a successful artist. That's a different issue from composing to enhance the story, which is what I do, and isn't the reason composing is being replaced by libraries. You are right that the goal to get it done quick and cheap has a lot more to do with it. Yes, reality TV is fueling part of that trend.

it's not dying.... it's very much alive. It's just that you have to compete against everything that came before you, &that's a lot. Art dates back thousands of years & music is pretty close behind. When people have something in mind they take something they already know exists, naturatly, & put it there. On my local public classical radio station last week they had music that was customized for "2001: A Space Oddosy" yet never used because previously made work (ie public domain classical music) made it in to the film. It was better for the film then the comissioned stuff.

It also has a lot to do with quality. When someone asks me to do a vid for them they know what they pay for is worth it. But, I've also not done a few jobs specificly because I said "you could do that in power point WAY easier & cheaper, there's no point in wasting money on having me do a video of it." My stuff would be of good quality but so owuld a simple PP presentation that they could whip up in a few minutes. If they needed music, they could pay a liscence but people who see the video (or PP) most likely owuldn't notice the difference between a pro written song that costs hundreds or a cheap Acid loop. It's not that important & doesn't add anything.

Then again, I've tried to use modern artist music & there's almost no point in trying. Publishers make it near impossible to get approval.

EDIT:

maybe you should focus more on video game music. Many games are going "pro" with music... big scores & big bands & such. Wouldn't pay as much as, say, Fox or Paramount but odds are you could get more gigs (same with the art side... good artists are hard to come by for games).

Personally, I would welcome back films and music that actually had meaning. True art forms are decaying. Its just too easy to throw together an album or movie that it has in fact, devalued entertainment altogether. Its funny I bring this up.

The other night, my wife and I were talking about how times are different. We have nearly 11 years difference in ages. To her, music started with bubblegum pop in the 80s. To me, the best music was in the late 60s and 70s when songs had purposes and meanings. When an artists' message had to be cloaked for fear of censorship of not getting played. Dylan's Tamnourine Man was classic. With modern music, its lay down a couple loops with some catchy hook and fill up an album. We now get 15 songs average per CD with one-two decent tracks. Back in the 70s, we got eight songs that had an artists true soul and hard work on it. With movies, that has changed as well. Instead of using good writing and storytelling, modern day movies opt for the big effects and explosions.

Its just truly a sad state of affairs that every pure artistic form of art has fallen so far whether it be music, movies, or paintings. Are there even any more TRUE artists anymore? It just really seems as if everything comes down to the almighty dollar.

I didnt mean to sound like I was slighting your position. My point was we no longer live in a world where true art forms (composing, storytelling, etc...) is appreciated anymore. We are so overwhelmed with entertainment everywhere we turn. Add to it that todays generation refuse to recognize the true value of the artists and their hard work and we end up with what we have today. A market where someone else can and will do something for cheaper than the next guy. Sadly, that will win just about everytime.

at the risk of offending everybody... you are talking about apples and elephants here.

first - to the composer - I feel for you, fer sure... but... when you DO get an original score... are you hiring a full orchestra to score it? Not on a $500 budget. You're using a synth to put a whole bunch of musicians out of work. It was my pleasure in the bad old days to hire a music company to score music for commercials. In those days ('70s and '80s) a session would comprise at least a half dozen musicians... couple o' horns, a keyboardist, percussionist, maybe a string player... and even then, they'd overdub and multitrack to make a full sound. Right... even I was too late for a full orchestra - or rather, even with a hundred thousand dollar budget, you couldn't afford $30,000 for the orchestra, studio, engineers and mixdown. (I did once pay Ray Charles $100k for "America" for LIfe Magazine, but it was already recorded). Nevertheless, it was always fun to go to these sessions and watch great pro's at work.

In the early '90s I heard the same sad tune from the musicians that I knew - no work - a guy with a good synth setup could easily do a whole horn or string section. But you still needed major equipment to record.

Well times do change. In '89 I bought an online tape edit setup for $500k, and made plenty of bucks by no longer paying $400 an hour at edit studios. Today I do it all faster, better and slicker in half... no, a tenth of the time... on (ta... daaa).. Vegas! I sold the on-line edit system when I saw my first on-line AVID ($120k), but things changed so quickly that I never got out of the $120k AVID - it's on a shelf in my garage.

But ya know... there are still guys doing commercials for $500k. And NO they are NOT pocketing the extra $29,000 and using stock music. At those budgets, you simply pay the best, to deliver the best. If you listen to the scores in any Coke or ATT or airline commercial, you are NOT hearing stock music.

But not for a $5,000 video budget. There we use ACID or stock music. You have to and it ain't bad. A good ACID score beats the daylights out of a crappy original score.

We are the pioneers in the greatest media revolution in the history of civilization. For a thousand bucks ( a figure easily within the budget of any typical American) you have a complete tool set... graphic, video, word processor, accounting, printing, editorial, music creation - on and on.

Things change and we are in the midst of it all. Some musicians are out of work. Others are doing great. Typographers are Gone. Film labs are Gone. Film editors (on the moviola) are Gone. A host of professions are gone forever. And yet, we see magnificent work everywhere.

Don't knock popular media. Citizen Kane was roundly hated in it's day - Orson Wells could never make a buck with his movies. His whole life and career were spent scrimping and begging to raise money.

In the end... some of you will take the new tools, change your ways, and create Greatness. Grab the bull by the horns and battle the creative demons.

Don't look back.. Don't cry about what's gone. There was a time, not too long ago that every American knew how to skin a pig, grow a tomato, and raise a flock of chickens. Things change, and we're in the middle of it all. Rejoice in your freedom. Take the tools you have at hand, and make wonderful films. Go for it.

best,
v

I agree that pop music usually doesn't entail great songwriting, and often not even a great hook. More like a beat (and yes, I produce and have written pop and a lot of genres) and an attitude. I have a friend I work with quite a bit who is a superb songwriter and has been pitched to some of the most well known artists in the industry, but inevitably the song slot goes to a producer or inner circle writer - nature of the biz.

There are true artists - I would include artists such as Bela Fleck and the Flecktones and Allison Krause and Union Station, to name a couple. There are many more. It's just the typical pop/rock genre that has turned into an assembly line business because that's what the largest buying population, 12-16 year old teenagers, will buy.

pmasters - I didn't take your post as slighting my position - you have good points.

vicmilt - no offense taken here. You are right that technology has supplanted musicians. What do I do? Most budgets only cover a mock orchestra, or in-the-box production on my part, but that's still better than a library cut (which are often in-the-box now too), and certainly better than an ACID track. I do hire live musicians as much as possible for one reason alone - that live originality that only comes from humans. I do compose with large orchestral libraries, build my own loops, play my own keyboard parts, but hire whatever I can, even if it cuts into my budget, as long as I'm not losing money for my time. Where there is budget every composer worth their salt will hire an orchestra, but now that clients know they don't have to pay for one, they won't. So, it is a two-edged sword. As bad as I might want to hire a swing band or the BSO, my clients don't.

I'm not crying over the past - I've been doing this for many years and for a wide range of clients. I'm asking whether producers have allowed clients to cheapen the product we offer simply by default rather than selling it for the value it should have. How many times do you promote original music vs. figuring you can outbid the competition by not even charging for music, use a library/ACID track and make more on the video end? Is that really technology's fault? After all you just saved $499,000 by using Vegas instead of a high end system, right? ;-)

Even though technology has lowered the costs, and the standards for many, there is no reason to lower the quality just because it's easier to do lower budget work - the cheaper tools should leave more room for the humans to make a living, not less. I don't do mediocre work and don't charge mediocre rates, but I'm not holding out for a golden goose either - there is a balance, but it has to be worth my time - music isn't worth less than the per hour cost to edit a video, but in many cases, that's exactly what has happened.

BTW - for a $500 budget, you wouldn't even get a mock orchestra for anything more than a 30 second local spot from most good composers, myself included. I also couldn't hire and record a decent band for that and be worth my time not charged to other work. It can certainly be done, but not by people making a living doing it.

For sure I'm looking at ways to make the most of what is yet to come, rather than worrying about what has past, but there is a balancing point where if too much of the originality and creativity of art is replaced by loops, libraries, stock video, and quicker, cheaper production work, we'll lose our ability to create or appreciate anything original even if we want to.

Great discussion.

I've always regarded music as my "first talent", and I've dabbled around with all sorts of attempts to make money from it. I've long accepted that being musical doesn't guarantee a living, so I stopped trying long ago. There's still nothing to beat playing live though.

Producing video is another thing that is now much more available to the "masses", but it is something I've found I can earn a good living with, and which I thoroughly enjoy.....AND I have the opportunity to write and record original music for every project, so I get to indulge myself regularly.

I often wonder what Beethoven would have done with the software we have nowadays. Certainly would have saved a lot of ink and pen nibs...

Beethoven probably would have done what many of us do: grab a few Acid loops and make some music that initially sounds great but almost immediatly fades into a sea of unoriginality.

Hello Dedric! Have you tried sending your stuff to people/companies that get songs placed in films, tv movies, commercials, etc.? I have several friends who make quite a bit of money this way. None of the songs are "known songs" or artists. Just their original music.

I understand your frustration. I tour with bands for a living, but I found it ironic that the most I ever got paid as far as music written for something (movie, tv, commercial, etc.) was some music I did for a Sony video game. I didn't play a single note! I "wrote" it all in Acid. They wanted techno, which I can't stand, but needed the money at the time so I did my best for them and they used it.

Any way, there are still many avenues to do what you do. You just have to find the people who can help you get it placed...for a wee fee of course. :o) I'm not talking about a complete score to a movie mind you, but you can still be creative and be paid for it. Just keep banging on doors trying to get your stuff heard and it can happen again for you. Derek