Great idea, Tim. By the way, congrats on taking the top sales spot for February. You’re portfolio is on fire, dude! Keep the awesomeness rolling
An excellent choice! Congrats, Gareth
That’s awesome, Martijn! Congrats
I thought “sound a-likes” in general put you on dangerous legal ground. It was my understanding that if one could show clear intent to copy, then there was a case for possible legal action. It doesn’t matter if the chords are a little different or the melody is a little different. There is clear intent to copy in this case. This one is pretty mind-blowing.
Since I joined I’ve purchased new strings, percussion and piano vst’s. I was considering revisiting some old stuff, mostly anything with a dominant piano sound (as the new piano vst kicks ass!) just to improve the overall production value… But then I started to think if its worth while, as some of the old tracks seem to sell the way they are….
I have tried this from time to time and I almost always find that my original version is the best. I have thought “oh, I have much better strings now” or “this new piano will sound better than that one” or “I’ll just replace that guitar part”. But I find that when I replace the parts there is something lost in the performance.
There was a certain energy and emotion contained within the original sounds that I chose and I fed off that emotion as I created the part. Removing those sounds and replacing them with “improved” samples usually yielded unsatisfying results and a track that just didn’t stick together as well. It goes to show it’s certainly not all about using the newest coolest sounds but about making the right choices with the sounds you have.
Yesterday and today I had several correspondences with a producer from an ad agency in Europe confirming again and again that the $17 regular license is really all they need for a national TV ad campaign. It just doesn’t seem right to them. Not to me either.
Can’t wait for progress on this.
That’s great news, Ben! I am very much looking forward to major progress on this critical issue.
I agree that the addition of a more expensive broadcast license is a necessary change and the time is now for adapting to the needs of this growing marketplace. In fact, tiered pricing should be the number one priority of AudioJungle.
These larger-budget customers can easily handle a $1,000 licensing fee for their national TV commercials. They have much more than that in their licensing budget so even $1,000 will look inexpensive. By contrast, a $17 licensing fee doesn’t seem legit to these same companies.
I sincerely hope progress is made on this issue so that when we hear our music on a national TV ad we can smile and feel good that it was a fair deal.
Great news, Collis!