Why am I a Composer?: November 2012


AFX Industrial (film scores)

Is the voracious demand for music that fits into a certain style or genre stifling the composition of more eclectic works? Possibly. And today I'll also be considering how the impact of giving it away for free may be devaluing music.

The Comfort Zone

This year I sold the same piece of music to TV companies over and over again, a piece called Cinematic Rock A1 you can click on the title to hear it. I think I have sold that piece around thirty times to all sorts of different production companies and film projects, but is it any good? I don't know, nobody has ever commented on it - it just sells.

Conversely, a piece of music I wrote that has sold only one time won the Editors Choice Award for from a well known Hollywood music library and you can hear that piece here: Visions Of Passacaglia

OK I know it's nothing new, that seemingly less popular works get all sorts of recognition, that doesn't surprise me too much it's a funny kind of paradox. Composers can either write music that sells and make a humble living from it or they can write music that never sells and get all sorts of praise for it, I think many composers constantly walk a fine line between following their heart and following their head. But, ultimately by pandering to popular demand are we not stifling the composition of more eclectic works? I've even encountered people who don't think art, in any form should see its creators remunerated ... Unfortunately, there are also artists out there who are starting to believe this, and are devaluing their art by not pursuing payment for it.

Make Money, You Need It!

Music and money are two areas that, according to the continued actions of musicians, songwriters and composers, should never mix. I don't believe this for one second, but then you probably know by now that I'm a composer and it's how I make a living - I have to mix music and money. But what do I mean when I say the continued actions of musicians, songwriters and composers? Well, nearly every day I get a Tweet from a band or an artist, with a link to download their new album or mixtape for free! They often ask me for my opinion and my response is always to ask them a simple question: 'Why are you giving it away for free?'

Why are you giving it away for free?

If you're promoting your music on Twitter and Facebook then it sends out a certain message to the world, you are effectively telling us that you have something worth listening to - but whether the music you have created is 'good' or 'bad' is not relevant. What is relevant and what concerns me most for my fellow artists and composers is remuneration. Musicians spend thousands with manufacturers like Roland or Korg, but I doubt these companies ever Tweet at musicians offering them their latest synth for free. So why shouldn't musicians be paid for operating, programming and playing these instruments? After all, music doesn't just appear in the ether, composers don't simply insert a jack plug into the side of their head and let music dribble out in a long stream of consciousness directly into iTunes.

In reality, creating music, especially high quality music is an incredibly expensive business. To start with you have to create a huge space, a hole in your life to simply have access to the time needed to write music - then you have to fill that hole with the expensive equipment needed to record it. So, when I'm sent a free album download you can understand my question: 'Why are you giving it away for free?'

Using Library Music as Film Scores

Going back to my initial point, there is a high demand for music that fits into a certain style or genre and composers are quite rightly exploiting those areas to pay their rent. Rock music is one area (although seemingly over-saturated) that is always in demand and always sells well. The down side of this is that directors are turning to music libraries to 'score' their film, without realizing that in doing so they are often being detrimental to their film's success. OK so you may end up with a patchy, incoherent but adequate score, but is this really what you want? After all the time you have spent making your film?

What I've been trying to illustrate here is that in my experience composers never write to the best of their abilities when writing library music, film scores always sound better when the composer is directly involved. By not utilizing them (during your scoring process) you could be stifling the composition of a more eclectic score that may win your film more recognition and notoriety in the process. It may be easy to pick a piece of library music to go under your favorite scene, but who said making great art is easy? And, if you've struggled for years to crowd fund your movie, then your motives are obviously driven by artistic integrity rather than money. You know that this is the film that will make or break your career!

In terms of how your film is received no matter how good it looks, the way it sounds is still recognized as fifty percent of the total package. Ultimately, the way your film is scored and its overall EQ curve cannot be hidden from your audience, it definitely cannot be buried under a mountain of cheap reverb plug ins! And, it's for these reasons that the audio track is probably the most painful part of the whole process. But who said art was pain free?

- David.