|
|
Posted by Steve King on 02/06/07 15:55
<tysonjm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1170729352.339118.143730@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
BIG SNIP
> So, that said ("that" meaning everything mentioned above about the
> reasons and obstacles faced when hiring musicians for original music),
> if you're going to use the alternative and spend time searching for
> some decent and workable library music, what about that process could
> be made easier for you? Since it's time-consuming to wade through
> endless samples, is there anything that might make it faster or more
> efficient? Is it just about having to wade through the crap to find
> the gems? Or is the challenge more about wading through crap AND
> quality, but finding just the right track(s) that will work
> creatively? It just sounds like the biggest problem with this option
> is the time it takes...
>
> If you could create your ideal music library site, what are some
> things you'd look for that would keep you coming back again and again
> and refer others to it? Lots of questions, I know, but I'm genuinely
> interested in what everyone's looking for when using stock music.
I have found that an old-fashioned telephone call to the staff people at
music libraries is the most effective search tool. "I'm looking for a piece
of music similar to that used in X movie during the 'falls off the cliff'
scene. The scene I have to cover is 43 seconds long. Whaddaya got?" It's
low tech, but nothing replaces the brain of someone who has listened to
every cut in a library. There was once a time, when I had a strong sense of
every cut in the DeWolf library, a library the studio I worked for owned in
its entirety. My music searches went far more quickly after I'd worked with
the library for a couple of years, which was nice for clients but of mixed
blessing, when the studio charged by the hour ;-)
Steve King
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|