Production Libraries, Copyright and the Future of Composing

[kdm]

I posted this as a sideline in another thread simply because it was on my mind for various reasons, but it was OT and not answering the poster's question, so I thought I would post it here just to see what the current opinions are, as well as open up some discussion and awareness on current copyright hearings:

1) Regarding library music:

Is production/library music an opportunity for a new market, or a nail in the coffin for original music (of course no offense intended to library creators, or contributors that are just trying to make a living utilizing current technology for what it does well)? In some markets, the answer is unequivocably the latter - I've seen that happen personally (even large budget national ads that would previously hired a composer without question, have started viewing library music as a way to save money, even if a composer would be a fraction of the production budget). If we make it easy and cheap for directors, producers, ad agencies, etc to get music, eventually the advantages of hiring a composer are diminished by the convenience and cost savings of going to a library. I've written for a Hollywood library, but the licensing rates for their typical use were too low to be worth my time (though the advantage of repeat usage can be worthwhile in some cases, and sometimes these markets just don't have the option to hire a composer, and never did - understandable to some degree, but where there's a will, there's a way - where there's an easy out, there's no will).

Art, illustration and photography have taken a big hit - music is next - then video and even film and games.

It troubles me that the composing world is supporting what may well be another nail in the coffin for original music. No offense to anyone here. We're all in the same boat, but from my perspective (having been in the industry for quite a few years), it's sinking for all but the most elite markets, and most seem to be looking for a lifeboat to take a short ride hoping it lasts long enough to somehow be worth it. Sure, there are still opportunities, and even new markets (games) but that won't last long given the current trend, at least imho. There is also a balance between going for short term gains and maintaining a long term value - markets change, and we change with them or we don't survive, but the trend I'm seeing seems to be swinging too far away from longterm survival for custom music.

2) Copyright hearings:

Currently the copyright board, music publishers, RIAA, DiMA and others are engaged in hearings about proposed changes in copyright and royalty standards. Music publishers and writers associations are proposing increases in royalty rates. The RIAA and DiMA are proposing lowering royalty rates (DiMA actually proposing 0 royalty for writers on streaming media - which imho, is the future for 90-100% of all media content, and a slap in the face for content creators everywhere). If you haven't heard, go to nmpa.org, ASCAP, or BMI, etc and read up, voice your opinion - there was a copyright survey also circulating. A decision is due in October.
---

The point on both topics is that the future of being a composer, musician, artist, or writer as a career may well be hanging in the balance at this very moment. The more that is compromised now, the less there is to negotiate later. While changing media formats to streaming and digital media have changed the landscape of music, art and creative property significantly, there seems to be more of an effort to make it free/cheap for businesses, media producers and individuals to use than there is to ensure there are talented creative people being compensated for that content, such that there is an opportunity to continue producing great art. If it becomes too cheap, then the quality will follow the market value.

We use sample libraries instead of live musicians often times, and while that has reduced the live recording options for musicians to some degree, it has also expanded the opportunities for creative content. The same of course can be said for the above situations (and I won't venture to justify one at the expense of the other), so the question is - where do we draw the line? Where do you draw the line?

I have my own reference points, some fixed, some case by case as to how I draw those lines, but I'm curious as to how other composers (whether veteran or beginner) feel about this. Imho, it's important to keep a watchful eye on trends to know when to roll with it and be flexible, and when to stand firm and speak up. It's a competitive market, and we don't often share our tricks, market ideas, etc, but this is one time that without the benefit of a collective voice, we will have no voice.

[Vincent Bergbahn]

I can address point 1) Regarding library music:


A. The public - is generally oblivious to this concern and to quality. Broadway has a huge problem with recorded vs live music. 128 bpm mp3s and lower suffice. Going to or knowing anything about the symphony is elite. I would place a lot of blame on the radio, pumping it's tasteless paid for promotional crap across the airwaves. One answer to this is my next part....

B. The critic - the one who praises and condemns. The movie reviewer, the newspaper article, the magazines, the trusted blogs. These sources need to extend their useful arrogance's in demanding higher quality music (all components that go into the music) They must lay blame to those who are recorded or not live to forceful educate and broaden the publics perspective of the auditory landscape. The standard must be raised by the tasters of the world. This is the only way the public will respond rather that a race to lowest quality acceptable. I would liking this to the Hi-Fi stereo and headphone community. Finally the...

C. The directors, producers, ad agencies - of the world must embody their yearning to be new, creative original and a bit arrogant to demand no less. They must be made to feel less by the critics for choosing cheap over artistic authenticity. They must raise their personal bar.

This is the purposed solution can steer the field in the right direction or at least a guided and motivated one.

Note: I do believe samples and electronic music add to the palette of creative expression and by no means harms the industry.

[Daryl]

In addition to the points I raised on the original thread, I agree with the need to protect Royalty payments. Already the US is alone (I think) in paying no Royalties in Theaters, and obviously I wouldn't want to see the rest of the world follow suit. Probably the majority of my income is from Royalties, both Mechanical and Performance, so I have a vested interest.

However, if the Performance Royalty situation with streaming media changes to any degree, then I'm not sure whether this will help or hinder the library companies. Certainly if there is no Performance payment at all, the licence fees will increase, but whether this will make more film and TV companies think again about using a composer, rather than library music, remains to be seen.

There is no doubt in my mind that the majority of bad music, whether in compositional or production terms, on TV is not provided by library companies, so the interesting question for me is whether smaller budgets will mean more library usage, or just even worse composers.

One last point. I believe that YouTube has already come to an agreement (with UK PRS) so it's not as if it is all a one way street.

D

[kdm]

What's the YouTube agreement?

Just my opinion, but if the streaming royalty agreement somehow takes DiMA's stance and offers nothing (or very littl) to writers and publishers, then libraries would suffer greatly, as would writers. Also my opinion, but I believe streaming content will acount for 80-90% of media delivery within the next 5 years - hence the reason DiMA members want to minimize the cost of securing content (keeps their margins higher, and allows them to compete with lower costs to the consumer). The problem of course is that there isn't much motivate to create content if only the distributors are making money from it.

In general, while there is competition between libraries and composers for advertising work (and potentially film and games in the future), ultimately if supply and demand theory takes over and the market saturates, licensing rates would by necessity, or at least typical economic theory, decline even from the higher end libraries. (The main area I've seen a noticeable shift over the last 10 years is in advertising - and that's more about convincing production companies, directors, etc. to budget for custom vs. using library as a way to cut their bids and win more projects). If the standard of "reasonable" licensing starts a steady decline, then the future could be bleak for all of us. That's the pessimistic view though. Optimistically I would like to think that quality will ultimately win out, but that may be wishful thinking. Considering the decline I've seen in other art markets, I can't say I'm leaning towards the optimistic view.

[Daryl]

What's the YouTube agreement? I'll see what I can post tomorrow.

Just my opinion, but if the streaming royalty agreement somehow takes DiMA's stance and offers nothing (or very littl) to writers and publishers, then libraries would suffer greatly, as would writers. Also my opinion, but I believe streaming content will acount for 80-90% of media delivery within the next 5 years - hence the reason DiMA members want to minimize the cost of securing content (keeps their margins higher, and allows them to compete with lower costs to the consumer). The problem of course is that there isn't much motivate to create content if only the distributors are making money from it.

In general, while there is competition between libraries and composers for advertising work (and potentially film and games in the future), ultimately if supply and demand theory takes over and the market saturates, licensing rates would by necessity, or at least typical economic theory, decline even from the higher end libraries. (The main area I've seen a noticeable shift over the last 10 years is in advertising - and that's more about convincing production companies, directors, etc. to budget for custom vs. using library as a way to cut their bids and win more projects). If the standard of "reasonable" licensing starts a steady decline, then the future could be bleak for all of us. That's the pessimistic view though. Optimistically I would like to think that quality will ultimately win out, but that may be wishful thinking. Considering the decline I've seen in other art markets, I can't say I'm leaning towards the optimistic view.
Persuading production companies, directors, etc. to budget for custom vs. using library is certainly not something I'll be doing, and I'll be going out of my way to show them that they can get a top orchestra recorded in Abbey Road Studio 1, if they like, by using library music....! However, a film is more likely to need custom scoring, where a documentary is probably not, and would most likely get a better standard of music and production values by using library.

D

[kdm]

Daryl - do you sell library music, or own a library music company (if you don't mind saying)? Might be good to qualify your perspective since it does seem to imply that library companies, in part, have competing goals with those of composers (i.e. competing for similar clients and market space).

For other composers, does, or would knowing that library companies are aiming for the same market you are influence your decision to contribute, or do you think it just opens up non-competing opportunities (just asking for sake of discussion)?

[Daryl]

Daryl - do you sell library music, or own a library music company (if you don't mind saying)? Might be good to qualify your perspective since it does seem to imply that library companies, in part, have competing goals with those of composers (i.e. competing for similar clients and market space).

For other composers, does, or would knowing that library companies are aiming for the same market you are influence your decision to contribute, or do you think it just opens up non-competing opportunities (just asking for sake of discussion)?
Writing library music is a large part of my work and the Royalties are probably the majority of my income.

Of course library companies are competing with composers. However, they are also working for composers; just not those who don't write library music. What you should be worried about is that library companies are now moving into the market for promoting their composers to score projects, and then, releasing the music into their catalogues for further usage. This could easily mean more work for library composers and less for others. It will also mean that companies can get a score cheaper, as the library companies will foot some of the music production costs. The irony of this is that for years film production companies have been stealing the Publishing with no intention of fulfilling their legal obligations, but the library companies will actually be acting in a more ethical manner.

For scoring drama, hiring a composer will almost certainty be better, provided that there is a big enough budget.
For commercials it is a toss-up, depending on the commercial.
For a documentary the library company will almost certainly provide better and more varied music at a price that would make the project unviable for a composer.

D

[kdm]

For a documentary the library company will almost certainly provide better and more varied music at a price that would make the project unviable for a composer.

D

No, that is not true in general (sounds like a sales pitch, but I can't blame you there ;-) General and lower budget docs, yes, but not dramatizations, creative, or more thematic, higher impact docs.

The directors/companies I work with forgo libraries whenever they have a real budget. They know the difference. There is no way a repetitive or meandering 30, 60, 90 or 120 sec music bed can replace a piece that hits cues, transitions, and moves with a scene. I've edited enough projects in post to library music from the top libraries to know just what the piece lacks by going that route - even 30 second ads suffer noticeably.

I have a way of addressing this decision with agencies, directors, etc that's rather convincing. :-)

I guess we should let this one rest since you and I seem to be the only ones interested in discussing. :-) Btw - don't take what I'm saying as contentious - just a different perspective, and a valid one from my experience, just as your perspective is valid for your market. We are all looking for the best ways to make a living doing what we love. It's great that you have found success in a market area that you enjoy. Ideally, there will always be markets for both.

[Daryl]

I'm quite happy to let this rest, as I have no need to argue my case. You see libraries as taking away income from composers, but you seem to forget that library music is written by composers, so the breed, if there is one, has actually lost nothing.

D

[kdm]

Since the other thread seems to have attracted the interest, but is way OT from the original post, I'll post my reply to that thread here:

First Daryl - never asked you to argue your case. I posted to get composers to think a bit more longterm.

Interesting. What I'm reading on the previous thread is a good bit of short term thinking. Because one can get their song on TLC or NBC, etc and make a royalty check that pays the month's rent or mortgage, all is well and good, but as one poster commented - it isn't a living for them at this point. Daryl makes a living doing this, and others do I'm sure, but ask yourself how many composers you know personally making a fulltime living (and I mean supporting a wife, kids, college, studio rent, overhead, staff, etc - not just paying for pizza or a new piece of gear - and not supplementing a more diverse business, as is the case for most of us)?

I'm not trying to disparage libraries in general, but I've probably been around a bit longer than most here, and I'm just relating trends I'm seeing that I've also seen come to fruition in similar industries (I know quite well the value of taking advantage of different opportunites) - this is just a symptom, not the end game. Let's take a somewhat archane, but relevant example: how many fulltime potters or basket weavers do you know? I know it sounds funny, but there was a time when those were career fields - now they are novelty art forms at best, hobbies for the most part. Guess what? Music is headed the same way. Libraries aren't the only, or even the main threat here - they are just a symptom. Mindset and thinking of music as a valued product are what is at stake, and that is without a doubt changing. The record industry is losing in CD sales - iTunes has double CD sales in revenue. "Great" you say, "we've just substituted one method for another!" Sure, but we've also doubled the market of how much music is available, probably 10x actually. Are more artists making a living, or are there just more artists making a little extra here and there? That's not bad in and of itself, but extrapolate a bit on what that really implies.

For those that say you don't believe it when someone talks about market saturation - I would suggest reading up, or brushing up on Economics basic theories of supply and demand. There isn't an endless supply of demand, so what happens to supply? Prices drop, and supply dwindles again before it levels out - usually at a lower price. There is growth in some areas now, but that isn't going to last, and new media markets and mentalities aren't guaranteed to consider music a valued resource either. There are only so many hours in a day a given person will watch or listen to media of any kind.

We've been riding the wave of new emerging markets replacing and in some ways opening up new opportunities for media content over the past 20 years, but that won't last forever - it can't. Again, Econ 101. All of us are depending on one factor: our own value as a contributor, whether as a custom score composer, library contributor or artist. However, that is as far from guaranteed as it gets. Sure we'd like to think that we will be unique and a shoo-in for work in the future, but reality is, that isn't the case when the competition is only mild.

What happens when there are 10,000 libraries, each with 10,000,000 cuts? How do you stand out? Just asking - that level of competition is pretty much a given. Also put the quality argument aside - high quality is assumed, and that's what I'm talking about - only the best will survive in any market anyway. But now that the best of the average is pitted against the best of the best, and everything in between, along side a billion other cuts, it's a lottery game, not a quality game. You have no relationship or connection to the client to fall back on. Take the example I believe I posted earlier - the illustration and photography markets. When a well-respected national rep agency for some of the top 2 dozen or so artists in the country isn't seeing more than a couple find work in major markets, the industry has lost it's value as a whole. Stock art has moved to mostly royalty-free with upfront payments of $10-$100 per piece - for artists that used to get 5 figures easily. There are opportunities to some degree, and new markets to some degree (web), but those are also being replaced by templates and automated options.

Watch the copyright hearings. If by some sad chance streaming royalty proposals fall flat and we end up with a micro penny per, then start looking for a new career. Sorry for the doom and gloom. I'm posting this to suggest that we all take a realistic look at what happens in 10 or 20 years. Royalties don't last forever and aren't guaranteed (unless you wrote the Irish Spring soap jingle and retired - I'm dating myself now... ;-). And royalty and licensing rates aren't guaranteed as more licensors compete for placement, and more purchasers look to cut costs. One factor would drive prices down - both factors pretty much guarantee price drops are coming.

When I started out, local and regional markets were a great opportunity for new composers and musicians. That's gone now (not my market, but I see what's happening), and that trend is spreading it's way out and up.

The point to all this? Think about where we are headed as an industry in the long run - past the point where royalty checks run out for this years' work (library or not), past the point where films and games have found new sources of music that the traditional options (think music auto-creation software - it's lame now, but won't be for long), and past the next (not this) round of royalty hearings when the mentality towards art may see it the same way we see water - everyone wants it (well, many, in the case of music), and it's usually not hard to find if you look up when it's raining. The mindset of the industry is what is at stake, not a library cut, or 20 or 50. Just something to think about.

I only posted this here since I assumed we were all composers with similar goals and this might spark some individual initiative to think about your own market and career goals with a little different perspective. It is interesting to see how diverse those goals are, as well as our perspectives on how to acheive them. Pardon the long ramble - just thinking out loud as a diversion after many long weeks of work, and many more to come.

[Daryl]

Since the other thread seems to have attracted the interest, but is way OT from the original post, I'll post my reply to that thread here:

First Daryl - never asked you to argue your case. I posted to get composers to think a bit more longterm.

Interesting. What I'm reading on the previous thread is a good bit of short term thinking. Because one can get their song on TLC or NBC, etc and make a royalty check that pays the month's rent or mortgage, all is well and good, but as one poster commented - it isn't a living for them at this point. Daryl makes a living doing this, and others do I'm sure, but ask yourself how many composers you know personally making a fulltime living (and I mean supporting a wife, kids, college, studio rent, overhead, staff, etc - not just paying for pizza or a new piece of gear - and not supplementing a more diverse business, as is the case for most of us)?
If you are involved in library then you know more library composers. Many I know earn £40,000 or so per year from library alone. Then again, they are good writers.

I'm not trying to disparage libraries in general, but I've probably been around a bit longer than most here, and I'm just relating trends I'm seeing that I've also seen come to fruition in similar industries (I know quite well the value of taking advantage of different opportunites) - this is just a symptom, not the end game. Let's take a somewhat archane, but relevant example: how many fulltime potters or basket weavers do you know? I know it sounds funny, but there was a time when those were career fields - now they are novelty art forms at best, hobbies for the most part. Guess what? Music is headed the same way. Libraries aren't the only, or even the main threat here - they are just a symptom. Mindset and thinking of music as a valued product are what is at stake, and that is without a doubt changing. The record industry is losing in CD sales - iTunes has double CD sales in revenue. "Great" you say, "we've just substituted one method for another!" Sure, but we've also doubled the market of how much music is available, probably 10x actually. Are more artists making a living, or are there just more artists making a little extra here and there? That's not bad in and of itself, but extrapolate a bit on what that really implies.
I think we agree up to a point here, but part of the problem is technology, and that is here to stay.

For those that say you don't believe it when someone talks about market saturation - I would suggest reading up, or brushing up on Economics basic theories of supply and demand. There isn't an endless supply of demand, so what happens to supply? Prices drop, and supply dwindles again before it levels out - usually at a lower price. There is growth in some areas now, but that isn't going to last, and new media markets and mentalities aren't guaranteed to consider music a valued resource either. There are only so many hours in a day a given person will watch or listen to media of any kind.
I agree with this as well.

We've been riding the wave of new emerging markets replacing and in some ways opening up new opportunities for media content over the past 20 years, but that won't last forever - it can't. Again, Econ 101. All of us are depending on one factor: our own value as a contributor, whether as a custom score composer, library contributor or artist. However, that is as far from guaranteed as it gets. Sure we'd like to think that we will be unique and a shoo-in for work in the future, but reality is, that isn't the case when the competition is only mild.
This is also true, but in terms of library, bad composers just don't make much money, unless they are really lucky. Even then it quickly disappears, unless they have a depth of tracks in the catalogue.

What happens when there are 10,000 libraries, each with 10,000,000 cuts? How do you stand out? Just asking - that level of competition is pretty much a given. Also put the quality argument aside - high quality is assumed, and that's what I'm talking about - only the best will survive in any market anyway. But now that the best of the average is pitted against the best of the best, and everything in between, along side a billion other cuts, it's a lottery game, not a quality game. You have no relationship or connection to the client to fall back on. Take the example I believe I posted earlier - the illustration and photography markets. When a well-respected national rep agency for some of the top 2 dozen or so artists in the country isn't seeing more than a couple find work in major markets, the industry has lost it's value as a whole. Stock art has moved to mostly royalty-free with upfront payments of $10-$100 per piece - for artists that used to get 5 figures easily. There are opportunities to some degree, and new markets to some degree (web), but those are also being replaced by templates and automated options.
This could be a worry, but so far my earnings easily outstrip inflation, and I don't see that changing any time soon. Again, the people who suffer will be the bad writers, and the ones who rely on fashionable tracks, for example the dance composers are not doing so well now as they were 3 or 4 years ago. In any case, if there is market saturation then it just means that there are too many composers out there. Society will decide which ones survive, much the same as it does with every other way of earning a living.

Watch the copyright hearings. If by some sad chance streaming royalty proposals fall flat and we end up with a micro penny per, then start looking for a new career. Sorry for the doom and gloom. I'm posting this to suggest that we all take a realistic look at what happens in 10 or 20 years. Royalties don't last forever and aren't guaranteed (unless you wrote the Irish Spring soap jingle and retired - I'm dating myself now... ;-). And royalty and licensing rates aren't guaranteed as more licensors compete for placement, and more purchasers look to cut costs. One factor would drive prices down - both factors pretty much guarantee price drops are coming.
This will happen anyway, and even if the library companies were to magically disappear overnight it wouldn't stop this.

When I started out, local and regional markets were a great opportunity for new composers and musicians. That's gone now (not my market, but I see what's happening), and that trend is spreading it's way out and up.
This is also true in the UK.

The point to all this? Think about where we are headed as an industry in the long run - past the point where royalty checks run out for this years' work (library or not), past the point where films and games have found new sources of music that the traditional options (think music auto-creation software - it's lame now, but won't be for long), and past the next (not this) round of royalty hearings when the mentality towards art may see it the same way we see water - everyone wants it (well, many, in the case of music), and it's usually not hard to find if you look up when it's raining. The mindset of the industry is what is at stake, not a library cut, or 20 or 50. Just something to think about.
Again, if that is what happens then it won't be any different from the Printers losing work to automation or any other industry.

I only posted this here since I assumed we were all composers with similar goals and this might spark some individual initiative to think about your own market and career goals with a little different perspective. It is interesting to see how diverse those goals are, as well as our perspectives on how to acheive them. Pardon the long ramble - just thinking out loud as a diversion after many long weeks of work, and many more to come.
I think that in the end composers do have similar goals, just different ways of wanting to achieve them.

D

[kdm]

Good points Daryl - I too think we pretty much agree, even if from slightly different perspectives. My primary goal, or hope, here is to keep us all aware of the potential challenges so we can, as individuals and as a community, work at least with common awareness to not just maintain the art of the industry, but grow with it, and educate our clients to the value of our product, even as the market, delivery and/or production methods change.

[Daryl]

Good points Daryl - I too think we pretty much agree, even if from slightly different perspectives. My primary goal, or hope, here is to keep us all aware of the potential challenges so we can, as individuals and as a community, work at least with common awareness to not just maintain the art of the industry, but grow with it, and educate our clients to the value of our product, even as the market, delivery and/or production methods change.
One thing that must happen, if composers are to survive, IMO, is to get rid of this automatic Publisher status that many film companies insist on. In reality very few of them have any intention of exploiting the music apart, from on the original film, so there actually should be no Publisher's share on the original project, only for subsequent usage. The irony of this is that if the Publishers lived up to their legal obligations, then all composers for media would be library composers. :D

D

[TheAlps]

The funny thing to me is you guys discuss the future of composers from the threat of music libraries on this forum... what about the future of professional musicians that we have collectively allowed to disintegrate by embracing sampling technology? I smell a large does of hypocrisy ;p

[nickysnd]

The funny thing to me is you guys discuss the future of composers from the threat of music libraries on this forum... what about the future of professional musicians that we have collectively allowed to disintegrate by embracing sampling technology? I smell a large does of hypocrisy ;p
I don't smell any does of hypocrisy here, but you may have a better noes. :D

[kdm]

Hmm - I think I addressed that in my original post, and if you followed the threads you would see this is a discussion of perspectives and opinions.

Most of us work hard to employ real musicians and artists, and pay them well. You can claim hypocrisy all you want, but isn't even that a bit of the pot calling the kettle black? Then again, it does kind of prove my point by virtue of associative example, doesn't it? :-)

[kdm]

I'm with you Daryl on the publishing idea. It's been a bane of artist music as well. Obviously there are plenty of stories of artists that gave up all pub rights just to get a record deal. Greed, it's all about greed. ;-)

[TheAlps]

Hmm - I think I addressed that in my original post, and if you followed the threads you would see this is a discussion of perspectives and opinions.

Most of us work hard to employ real musicians and artists, and pay them well. You can claim hypocrisy all you want, but isn't even that a bit of the pot calling the kettle black? Then again, it does kind of prove my point by virtue of associative example, doesn't it? :-)

I would like to see some statistics of the people on the EastWest forums (or any sample library forums) who write music, what percentage employed *ANY* live musicians last year. And of the ones that did employ live players, how many hired more than 1 or 2 people doing overdubs?

I dont blame the composers, we are victims of a business raped barren by 10 years of unchecked illegal downloads and the MASSIVE spiral to all associated aspects of the music industry economy. Proliferation of llibraries with cheap and easy music for editors directors and music supervisors to schlep into their project at 3am are one outcome of this phenomenon. The end of the AFM performance fund is another. The embracing of technology to recreate live instrumens via sampling that sounds "good" in a limited way but is cheap and easy to compose with when films stop paying sync and master fees up front is another

But to talk indignantly about how libraries are stealing our earned rights while we all sit and plug away with massive sample libraries creating the same situation for the musicians is just ridiculous. the real threat is much much greater and after 50+ years of lawyers and suits making a sleazy mess of a quagmire for artists to get lost in and money to be made off, the abrupt change since the first peer to peer software became reality has affected not only the suits that have pursued how to put art in a box and market it with minimal risk, but exponentially all of the artists who were caught in the quagmire, and a royal splooge to navigate safely through for young new artists.

The solution for everything is for government to get involved in working with the ISPs to put a real stop to illegal downloading and p2p sharing of music files. Then the money flows again to the sleazy suits who in turn pay for better film budgets, better concert commissions, etc etc

[Daryl]

I would like to see some statistics of the people on the EastWest forums (or any sample library forums) who write music, what percentage employed *ANY* live musicians last year. And of the ones that did employ live players, how many hired more than 1 or 2 people doing overdubs?

Well I can only speak for myself, but I hired many players last year. I can't give you figures, because it depends on how you count them. For example do two sessions mean twice as many players?

D

[kdm]

But to talk indignantly about how libraries are stealing our earned rights while we all sit and plug away with massive sample libraries creating the same situation for the musicians is just ridiculous.

i actually mainly posed the question. The sample library debate was done 10 years ago. Obviously you don't have a problem with it ethically, so to accuse others of hypocrisy is, well, hypocritical. The argument here is, or was intended to be in support of composers, regardless of the tools we use, not against or in spite of.

My premise is that there is a change in mindset about the value of music itself, not arguing whether technology is good or bad - it is what it is, and it does have negatives and positives, but that's a different discussion - feel free to start a new thread on those lines. Eventually software will be able to create, or recreate any sound, style, performance, essence of a composer's style, etc, and any client will be able to use it create original music, with no musical knowledge whatsoever. Maybe music supervisors will still have jobs, or maybe we won't be trading money then either and art will only exist for enjoyment.... ;-)

My point is that eventually, given this long transition towards simpler, faster, cheaper, more automated, there might not be money to be made in music - just a simple supposition to consider, not a given by any means - at least I hope not. No hypocrisy here if you read carefully rather than make broad assumptions.

In essence, the rest of your argument is the same as mine, though from a different angle, and I agree with you there - you are confirming that music is losing value or at least fighting a battle to maintain it, and that is the real tragedy here. That's true for artists and musicians as well as composers. There are new options, but also a decline in others. The problem is when prices and fees don't translate equivalently to new markets, and I've seen that happen first hand as well.

I just used libraries as my example of how faster/easier/cheaper is the mindset that is driving down rates, fees, and opportunities. Yes, sample libraries did the same, as did ProTools, and a myriad of other tech advances - but the point is, how do you prevent those changes from diminishing the value of the end product itself? I don't have an answer for everyone other than to continue to promote the value of original music, not just to clients, but the general public as well.

[nickysnd]

So, if I understand correctly, the premise is that today it is faster, easier, and cheaper to come up with musical support for video. Based on that, the point is that technology and libraries make it possible for more and more people to make music for video media -- which lowers our income. But, who is our? Those more and more people, who are they? Perhaps, they are us? :)

I think at stake is not the music's value getting degraded, for there are different media for different quality expectations. I believe this is more a question of scoring abilities than of making music abilities. As everybody can see, music is quite easy to make, and it will be easier and easier, faster and faster, cheaper and cheaper -- as more and more people will do it. I don't see that as a problem, but as an unstoppable process. Yet I don't feel threaten by it, because I know that making music is one thing and scoring is a different one. Scoring is an art based on the capacity of enhancing both the pictures and the narratives by musical means. Scorers having different degrees of that capacity are getting differently paid gigs -- from John Williams writing on paper in front of his piano, for $1million, to the teen messing around with GarageBand in his bedroom, for free. Scorers are getting paid for scoring, not for making music. And scoring is not getting degraded, as I see it.

At least that's what I see happening right now, and I expect that to continue.

$0.02

[White Noise 2]

One thing that must happen, if composers are to survive, IMO, is to get rid of this automatic Publisher status that many film companies insist on. In reality very few of them have any intention of exploiting the music apart, from on the original film, so there actually should be no Publisher's share on the original project, only for subsequent usage. The irony of this is that if the Publishers lived up to their legal obligations, then all composers for media would be library composers. :D
D

This is so true. I hate the conversation where they say - this is non-negotiable. I'm like, "c'mon... you don't even know how to exploit my music".

[White Noise 2]

I would like to see some statistics of the people on the EastWest forums (or any sample library forums) who write music, what percentage employed *ANY* live musicians last year. And of the ones that did employ live players, how many hired more than 1 or 2 people doing overdubs?

I dont blame the composers, we are victims of a business raped barren by 10 years of unchecked illegal downloads and the MASSIVE spiral to all associated aspects of the music industry economy. Proliferation of llibraries with cheap and easy music for editors directors and music supervisors to schlep into their project at 3am are one outcome of this phenomenon. The end of the AFM performance fund is another. The embracing of technology to recreate live instrumens via sampling that sounds "good" in a limited way but is cheap and easy to compose with when films stop paying sync and master fees up front is another

But to talk indignantly about how libraries are stealing our earned rights while we all sit and plug away with massive sample libraries creating the same situation for the musicians is just ridiculous. the real threat is much much greater and after 50+ years of lawyers and suits making a sleazy mess of a quagmire for artists to get lost in and money to be made off, the abrupt change since the first peer to peer software became reality has affected not only the suits that have pursued how to put art in a box and market it with minimal risk, but exponentially all of the artists who were caught in the quagmire, and a royal splooge to navigate safely through for young new artists.

The solution for everything is for government to get involved in working with the ISPs to put a real stop to illegal downloading and p2p sharing of music files. Then the money flows again to the sleazy suits who in turn pay for better film budgets, better concert commissions, etc etc

A whole Philharmonic Orchestra do ya? Oh, and EWQLSO featured too (no exposed multisamples or loops obviously) so, y'know. Everybody got paid.

[TheAlps]

Scoring is an art based on the capacity of enhancing both the pictures and the narratives by musical means.

It could be argued that the art of scoring is more an art of communication, of understanding and interpreting what a director sees and wants into music, and less of interpreting picture into music :eek:

[nickysnd]

"Scoring is an art based on the capacity of enhancing both the pictures and the narratives by musical means."

It could be argued that the art of scoring is more an art of communication, of understanding and interpreting what a director sees and wants into music, and less of interpreting picture into music :eek:
I never said or implied that enhancing is 'interpreting picture into music." Enhancing is whatever the film-maker says is enhancing. For example, the absence of music is enhancing, if the film-maker says so. The absolute authority of the film-maker is a given, no argument about that. Which makes me think it would be a good idea to also bring the film-maker in that definition, so there you go: "Scoring is an art based on the capacity of enhancing both the pictures and the narratives by musical means, according to film-maker's vision." Better now? :)

But my point was not about the definition of scoring. My point was this: making a living from making music, that might be endangered by libraries; making a living from scoring, that is not endangered by libraries. In other words, if libraries do degrade the price and value of making music, they do not degrade the price and value of scoring. On the contrary, I would say...

[jeb247]

Scorers having different degrees of that capacity are getting differently paid gigs -- from John Williams writing on paper in front of his piano, for $1million, to the teen messing around with GarageBand in his bedroom, for free. Scorers are getting paid for scoring, not for making music. And scoring is not getting degraded, as I see it.



I agree with this. While the increasing availability and ease of use of technology does open the opportunity for many more people (skilled and unskilled) to make music, it does not instantly grant them the ability to write a quality score. The great film scorers today and in the past developed their craft through long, hard work and dedication, not from simply purchasing software and expecting it to do the work for them.

As we focus on our craft and strive for excellence by "paying the dues" of long, hard work and dedication, I don't think we need to fear the fact that many more people have access to the technology. You get paid for doing what others cannot and from distinguishing yourself from your competitors, and we may do this by focusing on the music and making it as high quality as possible.

[peter5992]

I am newbie and somewhat hesitant to post on this thread, but I was actually kind of hoping to be able to get to the point - hopefully sooner rather than later - where one ore more music libraries might want to include my music into their libraries. If nothing else, it would give me a small steady stream of income - and I could take it from there to greater and bigger things, eventually trying to get into film scoring.

On the other point, by Christopher Alpair about not using live musicians - that is a very fair point, and I know that many musicians and orchestras around the world are scrambling to make ends meet, and I don't want to take away anyone's livelihood. But there are couple of very real impediments here: 1. if I get a bout of inspiration at say 2:30 am on Sunday morning, I can break out my laptop, start up sibelius, get the essentials in quickly and even get a rough idea of how it sounds - that is powerful, thanks to modernday technology and the wonderful folks at Sibelius and EWQL; 2. recording a live full fledged symphonic orchestra is well over and beyond me, at least now - neither have the budget, nor the experience or technical know how. It's not just hiring and paying for the musicians, think also about recording engineers and what all (I just have this lingering doubt Michael Tilsen Thomas will even take my call if I wanted to hire the SF symphonic for some project). What is great about the symphonic orchestra library is that it brings high end produced symphonic orchestral sound to this one little guy, right to my living room (once I get everything up and running well, that is).