They better be making new libraries, with all that money they are raking in. These Unicef libs always seem like a good value.
No one has had the curious experience of having a track sit around for a year and then sell?
In the end I don’t think it matters much. Like you guys say, most people probably filter by popularity and sales. The people who are willing to dig for tracks, I’m not sure it will make much of a difference having to dig through 300 tracks instead of 500 tracks. Maybe it would, who knows. Either way, the market is going to be hugely over-saturated, just based on the number of authors alone. From an author’s perspective, you probably want the most tracks on the site as you can have, because this doesn’t “clutter” your profile, it adds to your footprint. Really, the only way to get noticed is to have a big portfolio; more of your tracks will pop up in more search results and you will get more sales. Having a small portfolio full of your best selling tracks sounds like a good idea, but as an author I think you are really shooting yourself in the foot. Removing or limiting tracks won’t do anything to cull the over-saturation or the competition…everyone will just have less tracks, there will still be the same amount of authors and relative tracks and relative competition. Do most sales come from someone clicking in a search result or from someone perusing your portfolio? I’d bet the former, but I really don’t know.
This has been discussed quite a few times. The short answer is, no one really knows. The long answer is, check the sticky, “General Commercial Viability & Music Acceptance Tips” and if you still aren’t clear on what is required, listen to some approved tracks, and if that confuses you even more, well, what can you do.
Things seem to be a little more focused on the commercial viability aspect these days, as most of the people uploading know how to mix and master a track (like your track).
Get a six year old child to sing your songs, send it to Ellen Degeneres, BOOM, ONE BILLION VIEWS.
Probably not, the only thing you might be able to make sound halfway decent by adding good reverb is VSL. The problem with orchestras…some instruments (mainly strings but brass too) really need to just be recorded in a good sounding hall to begin with. At least that’s my opinion. Violin is especially troublesome. It’s not all about sound either, I think the really good libraries have a lot of articulations and little touches built in that don’t really jump out but that definitely add to the value. Most of the expense of the good libraries is recording great players in great sounding environments with great engineers.
Of course “good” and “cheap” are both subjective terms. Just because something is cheap doesn’t mean it necessarily sounds bad and just because something is expensive doesn’t mean that it sounds good, although that’s the perception. I think with smaller instruments and ensembles, you really have the opportunity to create quality stuff at different price points. With orchestral sample libraries, it’s a whole different ball game.
OceanicPiano saidWell said….and if they new what was commercial, why do more than half of my accepted tracks have no sales? Okay, so I just dissed myself big time.
Sometimes rejection is because of low quality, but once in a while we get something like “not commercially useful…” quote. Some reviewers have no idea what commercial useful is. For example most of my tracks are “commercially useless”, some of them were rejected… then why I am making sells in extended licences every month? Not everyone needs only jingles and ukulele backgrounds.
I think half of everyone’s portfolio has no sales.
That’s interesting,but,i don’t think creativity matters a lot in this business,when i produce royalty free music i always see it as a grind and i don’t need much creativity because most of the times i produce music that i don’t really like but the music that i think that will sell. Tried making music i like,didn’t work