TAXI.com

Hi all,

I've been trying to crank out music for library placements more quickly, and become more efficient in both the writing aspect, and production. The goal is 15/month. Lately, my approach has been to try do similarly-produced cues in threes. In other words, when I have a decent idea - let's say it's an instrumental sports/electronica track - I write two other cues using the same instrumentation, but obviously with different chord structure and melody. That way, I'm not creating a whole new project in my DAW (Sonar in my case) with a completely new set of soft synths, drums, live mic configuration, etc. I just wipe out all the audio, and start anew from track 1, using all the same channel settings. This approach comes in handy I've found, when a cue gets signed to a library or I get strong interest in it. I then know "OK, I'm onto something with this one. Let's pump out 2-3 more that are similar."

In the back of my mind, though, I'm aware of the fact that I may be plaigairizing myself (and the publisher that eventually signs it), since all of the cues in that group invariably end up sounding somewhat alike. Is this unethical? Or is that just me offending my Inner Artist?

Can any of you that produce LOTS of library tracks share your experiences or tricks to pumping out cues at a high volume like I'm attempting to do? SURELY, every one of these isn't a completely discrete, heavenly-inspired work of art?!

Thanks!

Eliot.

Bach, Mozart, etc. all had their favorite licks.


Your method sounds good to me.

I don't think you should worry too much about this. It sounds like you are paying attention to it enough. You can always come back later before you finalize the pieces and listen with fresh ears.

Just stay focused on quality over quantity and your speed will build naturally, don't artificially force it in the interest of bulking up your catalog.

Eliot,

I just did the same thing in the last couple of weeks for three tracks that included marimbas, drum loops and synth pads.

I set up a template before recording the first track. The marimbas were a constant. The drum loops (Stylus) and synth pads provided the variation from track to track.

I like this approach. I recently did the same thing for three spy tracks. I find it more productive to do a "batch" of tracks. While you have the oven warmed up, you may as well bake a lot of cookies.

I also have found that I like recording around ten tracks in a particular genre and pitch all ten as a batch. This again allows you to focus on a particular genre or sonic pallet. I'm currently doing this with ten forensic tracks and ten reality bed type of tracks.

I think this can be an effective method of building a catalog in larger chunks rather than one isolated track at a time. It is also more "project" oriented than a one off track. and if you do this regularly and maybe ten or twelve times per year, you've added 100 to 120 tracks to your catalog.
That's a lot of output!

Chuck

That's no different actually than practically every band on the planet! They don't get to switch up instrumentation. Every song Linkin Park does... vocals, drums, guitar, turntable/samples, guitar/keyboards. I think as composers that we get spoiled with all the choices and we feel that every track we do has to be completely different. I know I think like that. A library owner was telling me recently... "Do a track and then spawn a small collection of additional tracks from that setup". Hmmm... must be something to that!

thanks for this discussion. I never thought of keeping the same settings and then changing the melody/chord progression.... working in batches make so much sense! Iwill no longer do one-offs!

Yeah, I've been working that way all along; each template is a different ensemble, often with different banks of programs for the external keyboards, as well as preloaded samples for the VST instruments. Each group or songwriter I work with has its own template, as well, and is organized in a way that makes sense for the project; for example, I tend to use the same Addictive Drums kit for a whole set of songs-it provides continuity, and if somebody asks, "Hey, you got any more like that one?", I most definitely do!

hummingbird wrote:thanks for this discussion. I never thought of keeping the same settings and then changing the melody/chord progression.... working in batches make so much sense! Iwill no longer do one-offs!

WOW! Miss Bird is back,where ya been Miss Bird?


Great to see you.





Michael.

I wouldn't worry about plaigairizing yourself. With a setup like that, it's easy to swap out one or two elements also.

Batches are definitely the way to go. Not only for volume, but for quality. As long as you do good preproduction, doing a batch with similar instrumentation or 80% similar instrumentation should increase odds of getting at least one GREAT track from a session of three too!

Currently I work in batches of three, and will increase those to 10, if any catches on. Easy to do, just by returning to the project, and knock out some more. That way you are also famliarizing yourself more in depth with the sounds, I think.

It can work as just the opposite of just surfing surfaces, as it can feel when just auditioning sound after sound for a project.

Great post Eliot! What a place for musicians, when we openly can discuss things like this!

Great idea Eliot! I need to do this. I have a pretty short attention span and always want to move onto something new in a completely new style. But saving settings on everything and doing another song right away makes a lot of sense. I will start doing this more.

Hey thanks for the comments, everybody. It sounds that I was on to a decent idea, and it's good to hear that nobody thinks I'm approaching this like the proprietor of a Musical Puppy-Mill.

In these days, of loops, auto-arrangers, preset grooves, and other things that make making music so easy that you feel guilty about it, it's hard to know what crosses the line and what doesn't. Heck, it feels nowadays like you can combine a few elements, and a loop, and within an hour call it a song, when you haven't even touched a single "real" instrument!

But ripping of yourself still seems like fair game!
Ha.

Thanks again,

Eliot.