In my opinion, there are only two possible ways of how you can make money today composing music…licensing…not selling…so…
-
Would obviously try to get into a major library & publisher. The good part is that when you get a sync, you’ll make not $5 with it. We talk here about thousands of dollars with only one deal. The result is not only more money at once, but you have a great reputation, so people treat you as such if you can say that you had a “Nike” sync last night for 40k. The bad part is, it can take years to get there and it’s not only up to you how good you are but depends on many external factors. I would say it should be a side-focus where you try to make the best tracks you can quality-wise.
-
Is an option that more and more composers are doing through YouTube. They just created an account with a subscription option, like Patreon, and just do their own music with selling just one single license, most of the time. So the subscription is like $15 bucks for every filmmaker a month, and they can use as many tracks as they want, wherever they want, how they want etc. If you look closely, some of the guys are making thousands of dollars a month with these subscriptions. You can’t get more stability as a composer today, as you know 100% how much money you will have the next month. The downside? No royalties. Nothing. This model exists obviously longer “free copyright music” and everyone decides for themselves of course.
But it works, just takes months, years to build up. I can’t imagine that someone on AudioJungle etc. is making as much money as those free copyrights guys, as you said: millions of tracks. But if you are just one of 100 composers on YouTube with a free copyright music channel, you could have a huge potential following. By the way, most of that music is not good. Nothing special, not music-wise, not production-wise. Something that an average composer can put together in 3 hours. And that’s the strategy. If you make 100 tracks a year, without paying attention to every single detail, it will work out. If you read the comments, people are super-fans of those channels. So it works, as most filmmakers don’t understand how good or bad music can be / sound.
A personal story: I was asked to compose a track for a small commercial that is just for review. I send the music out. Feedback, all as usual, but I wasn’t treated like someone who is “special”, I mean you know what I mean. The team just said: “Good track.” A couple of days later, I said that due to custom work for a Hollywood Production Trailer Label I will not have a lot of time for communication. And because I have said that, they started to feel “special”, because I have mentioned that I work for a major publisher. So at the end of the day, it tells me again and again, it’s pure marketing, how people see and treat you.
If you tell them you made some amazing work for a big brand, they will treat you much more with respect and most importantly will value your work much more, even if it’s the crappiest track you put together in two hours. Back to point number 2. Of course, it’s not for everyone. But hey, we limiting yourself? If you make just simple music, why not making another name for that project and start to sell your work directly to people who need it? If you ask me, I definitely think about it, as I have so many tracks on my drive that definitely could end up in a YouTube video. Here, I really don’t care about the quality, extra mixing, polishing. One master chain and just go for it. I have 40 tracks at AudioSparx and what happened in 2 years? Nothing. One sell for 4 bucks. And the best part is: it was the track that I created in 30 min. Print out. Just stupid percussion. And then I have to give 60% to AS.
All those sites with a subscription is a dead-end for every composer. I have never got an answer from them when I have asked them how the split system works. So what does it tell us? Don’t do it. Create your own subscription site and go for it. Look, even if you will have 10 people a month, who will pay you 150 bucks, isn’t it better than wishing that someone will find the same music in between millions of tracks that sound the same for everyone? I mean you create your own rules too. Nobody says that you need to tell people that they can use that music in a commercial that will play worldwide. Just YouTube, TikTok, Facebook. For most filmmakers, it’s enough. And if they want to use it in a commercial, just raise the prices for a subscription with that option. I think there are some ways how it can work out in the long-run. Just make a plan and start putting those tracks out. Build a following and you will see that you will make far more income with the music you create, even if you potentially lose the backend where you still don’t have any control over, as the business is not transparent all the time and people forget to mention your work.
I was told a story where a colleague of a colleague of mine, he sued a big tv show, as they used his music for years without letting him know. He was told that, as he didn’t know himself. Won the court, of course, bought straight away a house and whatnot. But what if nobody knew about it? And I believe there are many cases out there that will have similarities. People do mistakes. It happens.
The only question is if you are able to make free copyright music if you are signed to BMI. I am not sure. But I can’t imagine that no one would do it, as it can work out much better than being with BMI, be signed with a major publisher, and don’t make any syncs in years. So why would someone risk that too? Only to say, “I want to have my deserved royalties?” Video games don’t pay you any royalties. They are already in the buy-out. So you can calculate that into your subscription – at least to a degree that you feel comfortable with.
Here would be a successful example: https://www.patreon.com/ashamaluevmusic
