Great post as usual Antonio and admittedly something I’ve been pondering myself for quite some time. Felt that I should make comment on this, as creative psychology is always an interesting one and ‘dry spells’ or ‘writers block’ is a phenomenon all of us here will experience at one time or another, for a variety of reasons.
It would be fair to say I’m actually right in the middle experiencing a similar situation, although one thing I’ve definitely realised over the past few months; this applies to creating ‘royalty free’ or production music specifically.
Firstly, I completely agree with your statement that there is inevitably an excitement in the early days. Most of us here had only just discovered what music licensing and RF music was all about. Stepping into the unknown and the learning of what makes one RF track ‘better’ (or rather sell more) than another was an exciting and new challenge, and only fuelled the drive and creativity.
I was fortunate enough during this ‘goldilocks’ period to serendipitously produce a few tracks that really became a life changer for me as they became quite popular outside of the Jungle. I was able to create and be inspired by what already existed, whilst remaining within what I thought were customer expectations of what background music should ‘sound like’. You could say that the music that was popular on AJ at the time served as an education, simply because it was an area I had never really experienced before. All new and exciting = creativity!
It soon became apparent after this, however, that there’s definitely a ‘formula’ and familiar sound that RF (or more specifically AJ) customers seem to gravitate toward, and unfortunately only seems to boil down to a limited amount of flavours.
I’m not a professional production music composer by any means (was a graphic designer before doing this and playing in a live electronica band) so having to constantly produce, day in day out, within the walls of usable background/wallpaper music (I V vi V pop progression chord structures, ukuleles, etc) could cause a certain amount of creative claustrophobia. Not ideal for someone that loves to constantly explore musical creativity in a whole host of genres. Also, there’s always that psychological pressure when creating RF/AJ music to make it work, ‘sound like a top seller’ and to generate the sales. If the sales don’t come in and you see another tune of similar ilk with 10000 sales, then that’s a creativity killer right there. All one is thinking is “is mine really that much worse?!”. Small things like this can definitely add up and cause the creative drive to wane.
Also, I’ve come to recognise that many of the more successful RF composers are already operating within their creative comfort zones. I’m now seeing the emergence of prolific composers (or even teams of composers) saturating the market with hundreds of incredibly well produced and structured cues, that are pretty much commercially bang on every time. I just can’t help feeling that there’s no way I could possibly keep up with that as I would probably go stir crazy!
So to deal with the burn out, I’ve personally decided to take a step back from forcibly creating RF music for the sake of it, to capitalise on the body of work I already have (via working hard on my YouTube channel for example), to create music that I want to create (which incidentally would be subject to a “not commercially viable” rejection message if I uploaded it here!) and sell/license this material in a more suitable setting. Right now, I’m currently working on material for an electronic album (created almost entirely with my vintage analogue outboard kit, something I have a huge passion for) which I plan on independently releasing and distributing sometime in the future.
By doing something like this (ie stepping back and redirecting the creativity), not only you’ll continue to get those creative juices flowing again, but occasionally you’ll be inspired to revisit the more commercial, RF stuff again in the future without feeling you have to meet any expectations. It’s in that state I believe creativity is at it’s highest and the best material is produced.
Excellent work Leon, totally deserved. Keep it up matey!
yeah, sometimes it is hard to see things from the buyer’s perspective especially when authors are worried about piracy.
And also remember that it’s hard to see things from the AdRev registered composer’s perspective, especially when authors are worried about upsetting a customer.
In both instances, it’s hard to smell the smoke when close to the fire, so we should all try and work through this amicably until we’ve found a resolve we’re all happy with.
The occasional animosity I’ve been seeing on this thread recently has me concerned, and we seriously don’t want this thread locked down.
I’m using the information within this thread when speaking to AdRev so it’s very important we keep the discussion going without attacking or ostracising others who happen have a different point of view.
Answer me this, if AdRev offered a payed service to do this for composers would you pay for it ?
If it was financially viable to my business, then of course. I want to protect my assets, as any serious business would.Tell me what you understand exclusivity of rights.to be.
Trick question?Meaning the copyrights are owned by one entity.
Sorry you couldn’t be more wronghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_right
Is a relatively simple explanation.Do you this Universal, Warner Chapell, Megatrax, Extreme Music “own” the copyright to all the tracks they have in AdRev ? think about it ?
Oh I dunno. I’m not a copyright lawyer and this doesn’t directly concern my material anyway. But if you want to disappear down that rabbit warren of legalese and red tape, be my guest!
Answer me this, if AdRev offered a payed service to do this for composers would you pay for it ?
If it was financially viable to my business, then of course. I want to protect my assets, as any serious business would.
Tell me what you understand exclusivity of rights.to be.
Meaning the copyrights are owned by one entity.
Art-of-Sound SAYS YouTube Content ID Administration Team demanded from AdRev to terminate my account and remove my songs from the system due to YouTube policy that doesn’t allow certain types of music, including creative commons and non-exclusive royalty free music, As it turns out here, music licensed without exclusivity, i.e. to multiple licensees, does not qualify for content ID.
Above link and quote by Art of SoundTo all those in this thread that doubted what I said about not being in Content id without exclusivity. Non ex with multiple licensees does not qualify for Content id or AdRev as shown by Art of Sound. It is there in very plain english on YT FAQ and here is evidence from an author here.
I spoke personally with AdRev straight after that was posted.
YouTube do not allow music that is being given away for free under Creative Commons Licenses to be digitally fingerprinted. This is because YT users were trying to monetize their videos with a License type that doesn’t allow this, yet permits users to use the music in any situation.
The ‘exclusivity’ YouTube/ContentID refer to is exclusivity of rights. ie. Before music can be digitally fingerprinted, the registrant must exclusively own all rights to the music, and it is not partly or wholly owned by another party.
Its a system designed for Major catalogue holders to monetise YT vids when there is Beyonce on the radio in the background, its pennies but a lot of them.
It’s actually a system that ALL copyright owners (including including Uncle John and his banjo) can utilise to monitor, administer and monetize unauthorised uses of their property on YouTube.
If you are so uptight about copyright protection get on high horses to Envato about PRO registration, far more important an issue for most authors here.
Just as important I’d say. And PRO registration has little to nothing to do with copyright protection and obviously a separate issue.
...so, if you are implying that just because AJ gives a buyer a license certificate they should somehow understand that they will receive a YouTube copyright notice that they must dispute…well, that is quite a stretch! that should be spelled out in every purchase of AdReved tracks.
The meaning and purpose of licenses (the very thing buyers are purchasing) should be spelled out in every purchase of AudioJungle tracks.
bdProductions saidOh man, why do so many people call me PurpleFrog? Is it because I’m French? Almost wish I had gone with that username in the first place. Would have helped my branding and visual identity.
Haha, I’ve got to be honest with you Pierre, but on a few occasions I’ve very nearly referred to you as PurpleFrog! And absolutely nothing to do with you being French either!
I think it’s a typoglycemic illusion with your username. You have your words joined in the username and the eye is taking the ‘r’ from purple and thus the brain completing the name as ‘PurpleFrog’. I used to work in graphic design and we dealt with things like this all the time!
I don’t understand your confusion…....
Thanks for the reply. Didn’t really answer my question, but thank you all the same.
I’ll be asking other VPs I work with the same question (I have lots to reach out to) so will be interesting to hear their responses.
The trouble is that you guys are now using these licenses as some kind of software serial code that must be punched in somewhere to release rights to use the music.
Absolutely right we are! This should have been implemented years ago and would’ve avoided this whole fiasco to begin with.