pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock calling for Music Producers  (Read 2215 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 10, 2017, 12:25 »
0


« Reply #1 on: April 10, 2017, 12:42 »
+1
Music on Shutterstock is nothing new, but nowhere do they say that they only do buyouts when you apply... PRO money is good though, unlike the completely terrible (for artists) Epidemic Sound.

Stay away unless they offer $5,000 per track (which of course they don't) or you are a very bad producer (in which case you won't get hired anyway).

A decent track can make $2,000-50,000 over a couple of years. Retaining control over your music is important.

Shelma1

« Reply #2 on: April 10, 2017, 13:09 »
+3
SS gives creative direction and revisions...sounds like they're getting music requests from their enterprise clients, then undercutting music reps who would negotiate a fair price for the artists. So they offer big corporations who want custom tracks discounted music, get the direction and revisions from the clients, pass that on to the artists, and keep the lion's share of the money while the clients get custom music on the cheap. Plus, they're locking current contributors out of the loop.

iStock II.

« Reply #3 on: April 10, 2017, 15:48 »
0
in the days of elvis or even beatles, get 50 cents per song or was it an album was an achievement that only elvis, beatles, and recently, bruce springtein and michael jackson or prince could attain.
then youtube came along and the best artists, including prince , u2 ,  loreena mckinnon,etc.. decided to go indie.
why not??? youtube is probably more global than even cbs (japan) used to be.
so, why would ,if you're anything good, join ss and choose to jump through hoops,
with the eventual bad trip of the microstock photographers inevitably going to end up the same way for music producers???
even a bad producers can rally enough support merely by putting his or her music on youtube.

« Reply #4 on: April 13, 2017, 12:09 »
+2
The real money for musicians lies in touring

A $9.99 download on a program like iTunes nets artists a modest 94 cents, less than a 10% cut. The record company takes $5.35 and Apple keeps the remaining $3.70.

Artists get nine cents for each individual song downloaded on Napster and iTunes. You would need to get about 13,000 downloads a month to equal minimum wage.

Being a musician is worse than trying to be a digital photographer. Anyone with a pencil and paper can be an artist and draw. Musicians work hard and study for years to get underpaid because honestly, really good guitar players are on every street corner. That's how some make a living. Singers are even more common. Buy a camera and make 15% is better than what musicians in the real world make. Sure there are some stars and then the other 99%. Same for Microstock.

Dare to dream and hope you make it, but a dose of reality is also good for the soul. Don't expect that the world will come to you, expect that you need to be different and the best of the best just to barely make it in the arts.

« Reply #5 on: April 13, 2017, 12:55 »
+1
The real money for musicians lies in touring

A $9.99 download on a program like iTunes nets artists a modest 94 cents, less than a 10% cut. The record company takes $5.35 and Apple keeps the remaining $3.70.

Artists get nine cents for each individual song downloaded on Napster and iTunes. You would need to get about 13,000 downloads a month to equal minimum wage.

Being a musician is worse than trying to be a digital photographer. Anyone with a pencil and paper can be an artist and draw. Musicians work hard and study for years to get underpaid because honestly, really good guitar players are on every street corner. That's how some make a living. Singers are even more common. Buy a camera and make 15% is better than what musicians in the real world make. Sure there are some stars and then the other 99%. Same for Microstock.

Dare to dream and hope you make it, but a dose of reality is also good for the soul. Don't expect that the world will come to you, expect that you need to be different and the best of the best just to barely make it in the arts.

Absolutely not! You are incorrect. It costs a lot of money to tour. Only the biggest artists in the world make money touring (and they of course make a lot of it). Most struggle to break even and most often lose money. That means most artists that are not Avicii/Kygo/Ed Sheeran. Even bands with several albums out that are somewhat famous don't make much money touring.

Your iTunes numbers can be anything from 0% to 70%. It all depends on the contracts. There is no normal. An indie artist gets 70%, and there are more and more of those making decent money. A big new artist with upfront money from the label makes 0% until the upfront money is paid back. This can be a couple of hundred thousand dollars.

The good money is in licensing for non-superstars (and sometimes merchandise if you are good at branding).

It is much easier to make money (licensing/stock etc.) with music than photography, trust me on this one. Sure, there are lots of musicians in this world, but you can't write, record and produce a selling track by accident. That is indeed possible with photography. And there are countless more photographers than musicians in the world.

There are many more opportunities for a track to make money after the sync fee in the form of YouTube money and PRO money (broadcast). This is not available for images/footage.

A placement in a commercial can easily get you an extra $1,000-2,000, and sometimes MUCH more. A bigger commercial that runs for a while can mean an extra $20-40k.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2017, 13:20 by increasingdifficulty »

Shelma1

« Reply #6 on: April 13, 2017, 18:59 »
+1
The real money for musicians lies in touring

A $9.99 download on a program like iTunes nets artists a modest 94 cents, less than a 10% cut. The record company takes $5.35 and Apple keeps the remaining $3.70.

Artists get nine cents for each individual song downloaded on Napster and iTunes. You would need to get about 13,000 downloads a month to equal minimum wage.

Being a musician is worse than trying to be a digital photographer. Anyone with a pencil and paper can be an artist and draw. Musicians work hard and study for years to get underpaid because honestly, really good guitar players are on every street corner. That's how some make a living. Singers are even more common. Buy a camera and make 15% is better than what musicians in the real world make. Sure there are some stars and then the other 99%. Same for Microstock.

Dare to dream and hope you make it, but a dose of reality is also good for the soul. Don't expect that the world will come to you, expect that you need to be different and the best of the best just to barely make it in the arts.

The real money lies in advertising. Licensing a famous song for a commercial can easily cost $1 million or more. I was surprised McCartney was offering some of his library (post-Beatles, of course) for practically nothing....only $250K. :)
« Last Edit: April 14, 2017, 13:55 by Shelma1 »

« Reply #7 on: April 13, 2017, 21:59 »
0
The real money for musicians lies in touring

A $9.99 download on a program like iTunes nets artists a modest 94 cents, less than a 10% cut. The record company takes $5.35 and Apple keeps the remaining $3.70.

Artists get nine cents for each individual song downloaded on Napster and iTunes. You would need to get about 13,000 downloads a month to equal minimum wage.

Being a musician is worse than trying to be a digital photographer. Anyone with a pencil and paper can be an artist and draw. Musicians work hard and study for years to get underpaid because honestly, really good guitar players are on every street corner. That's how some make a living. Singers are even more common. Buy a camera and make 15% is better than what musicians in the real world make. Sure there are some stars and then the other 99%. Same for Microstock.

Dare to dream and hope you make it, but a dose of reality is also good for the soul. Don't expect that the world will come to you, expect that you need to be different and the best of the best just to barely make it in the arts.

The real music lies in advertising. Licensing a famous song for a commercial can easily cost $1 million or more. I was surprised McCartney was offering some of his library (post-Beatles, of course) for practically nothing....only $250K. :)

Interesting and true. He's still trying to buy back his own works, from the Beatles era, from Sony. But also, more modern of his own is not going to get the play or residuals that The Beatles will get over the long run. There's just so much long term with the Beatles that McCartney doesn't hold. However he is still one of the best.

What was he trying to license for $250K that's pretty low. Or was it one song or what?

As for other people who think Napster or iTunes is the answer, go read some more about how bands make more on touring than on the songs or albums or iTunes. They can make more on shirts in one concert tour than an entire lifetime of royalties for an album. It sucks but that's the world now with digital.

Ask any musician which takes more study, time and life investment. Learning any instrument or pushing a button on a DSLR or phone. I'm not trying to put down musicians, but just point out that there's an abundance of over the top exceptional players and most are working a job to support their musical talents. It's like actors in Hollywood. You want pretty faces and knock out bodies, go look at cocktail waitresses in Las Vegas.

I can throw a rotten tomato in Chicago and hit a blues guitarist that just makes your fall over because they are so talented, amazing to hear and skilled. New Orleans, jazz people that play on the street that are capable of any top working backup band, or club. Branson has country musicians up the hills that can play as good as pretty much anything you'll hear in Nashville. You want classical, tryouts for most of the major symphony orchestras in the US draw thousands of hopeful applicants for a chair. The ones that aren't good enough for a violin will take a second or viola seat and be happy to get that. Rock and roll? If you can work and cover your expenses, you're a success. But don't quit your day job.

Dime a dozen for musicians isn't just an old term, it's pretty much still true. Microstock is even cheaper because with technology someone can take better photos, but music demands a deeper soul and much more personal investment in practice and experience.

If somebody doesn't have something different, cutting edge or marketable, they are just another starving artist. Pick your area, painting, drawing, music, photography, metals, pottery, oils, basket weaving, writing, or anything creative. There are just far too many, very talented and capable people. I've seen thousands of them. I'm in awe of their skills and talent. I can turn a corner tomorrow and see a thousand more.

There's no end to the number of creative people who are far above the really good or talented level.

That's the competition. Nothing is easy.

« Reply #8 on: April 14, 2017, 13:39 »
+1
The real money for musicians lies in touring

Absolutely not! You are incorrect. It costs a lot of money to tour.

sorry y3 , have to agree with id. touring with a band  is a lot of trouble and costly. even playing locally or across the state is costly. going on youtube like so many musicians these days, is much simpler and cheaper. even for the indie musician, even if you don't
make money like prince, u2, loreena, imogen heap, .. on youtube.. you can still make money
as they have what is called "monetize your site"...
and for other sites there is adsense or something like that.
still beats touring or signing exclusive with ss.
you already know how it is with photos, the same thing will happen with music once they get a stranglehold of the market.
only the clueless will sign exclusive with ss music.

Shelma1

« Reply #9 on: April 14, 2017, 13:59 »
0
The real money for musicians lies in touring

A $9.99 download on a program like iTunes nets artists a modest 94 cents, less than a 10% cut. The record company takes $5.35 and Apple keeps the remaining $3.70.

Artists get nine cents for each individual song downloaded on Napster and iTunes. You would need to get about 13,000 downloads a month to equal minimum wage.

Being a musician is worse than trying to be a digital photographer. Anyone with a pencil and paper can be an artist and draw. Musicians work hard and study for years to get underpaid because honestly, really good guitar players are on every street corner. That's how some make a living. Singers are even more common. Buy a camera and make 15% is better than what musicians in the real world make. Sure there are some stars and then the other 99%. Same for Microstock.

Dare to dream and hope you make it, but a dose of reality is also good for the soul. Don't expect that the world will come to you, expect that you need to be different and the best of the best just to barely make it in the arts.

The real music lies in advertising. Licensing a famous song for a commercial can easily cost $1 million or more. I was surprised McCartney was offering some of his library (post-Beatles, of course) for practically nothing....only $250K. :)

Interesting and true. He's still trying to buy back his own works, from the Beatles era, from Sony. But also, more modern of his own is not going to get the play or residuals that The Beatles will get over the long run. There's just so much long term with the Beatles that McCartney doesn't hold. However he is still one of the best.

What was he trying to license for $250K that's pretty low. Or was it one song or what?

As for other people who think Napster or iTunes is the answer, go read some more about how bands make more on touring than on the songs or albums or iTunes. They can make more on shirts in one concert tour than an entire lifetime of royalties for an album. It sucks but that's the world now with digital.

Ask any musician which takes more study, time and life investment. Learning any instrument or pushing a button on a DSLR or phone. I'm not trying to put down musicians, but just point out that there's an abundance of over the top exceptional players and most are working a job to support their musical talents. It's like actors in Hollywood. You want pretty faces and knock out bodies, go look at cocktail waitresses in Las Vegas.

I can throw a rotten tomato in Chicago and hit a blues guitarist that just makes your fall over because they are so talented, amazing to hear and skilled. New Orleans, jazz people that play on the street that are capable of any top working backup band, or club. Branson has country musicians up the hills that can play as good as pretty much anything you'll hear in Nashville. You want classical, tryouts for most of the major symphony orchestras in the US draw thousands of hopeful applicants for a chair. The ones that aren't good enough for a violin will take a second or viola seat and be happy to get that. Rock and roll? If you can work and cover your expenses, you're a success. But don't quit your day job.

Dime a dozen for musicians isn't just an old term, it's pretty much still true. Microstock is even cheaper because with technology someone can take better photos, but music demands a deeper soul and much more personal investment in practice and experience.

If somebody doesn't have something different, cutting edge or marketable, they are just another starving artist. Pick your area, painting, drawing, music, photography, metals, pottery, oils, basket weaving, writing, or anything creative. There are just far too many, very talented and capable people. I've seen thousands of them. I'm in awe of their skills and talent. I can turn a corner tomorrow and see a thousand more.

There's no end to the number of creative people who are far above the really good or talented level.

That's the competition. Nothing is easy.

McCartney had a whole long list of songs available for licensing...none of which I'd heard. All stuff from his post-Wings days. I might recognize some of it now since I've renewed my nearest in his music, but at the time I didn't know any of them, and none of the titles sounded like they'd be appropriate for our commercials. A shame...I really wanted to license something of his.

« Reply #10 on: April 15, 2017, 21:17 »
0
The real money for musicians lies in touring

A $9.99 download on a program like iTunes nets artists a modest 94 cents, less than a 10% cut. The record company takes $5.35 and Apple keeps the remaining $3.70.

Artists get nine cents for each individual song downloaded on Napster and iTunes. You would need to get about 13,000 downloads a month to equal minimum wage.

Being a musician is worse than trying to be a digital photographer. Anyone with a pencil and paper can be an artist and draw. Musicians work hard and study for years to get underpaid because honestly, really good guitar players are on every street corner. That's how some make a living. Singers are even more common. Buy a camera and make 15% is better than what musicians in the real world make. Sure there are some stars and then the other 99%. Same for Microstock.

Dare to dream and hope you make it, but a dose of reality is also good for the soul. Don't expect that the world will come to you, expect that you need to be different and the best of the best just to barely make it in the arts.

The real music lies in advertising. Licensing a famous song for a commercial can easily cost $1 million or more. I was surprised McCartney was offering some of his library (post-Beatles, of course) for practically nothing....only $250K. :)

Interesting and true. He's still trying to buy back his own works, from the Beatles era, from Sony. But also, more modern of his own is not going to get the play or residuals that The Beatles will get over the long run. There's just so much long term with the Beatles that McCartney doesn't hold. However he is still one of the best.

What was he trying to license for $250K that's pretty low. Or was it one song or what?

As for other people who think Napster or iTunes is the answer, go read some more about how bands make more on touring than on the songs or albums or iTunes. They can make more on shirts in one concert tour than an entire lifetime of royalties for an album. It sucks but that's the world now with digital.

Ask any musician which takes more study, time and life investment. Learning any instrument or pushing a button on a DSLR or phone. I'm not trying to put down musicians, but just point out that there's an abundance of over the top exceptional players and most are working a job to support their musical talents. It's like actors in Hollywood. You want pretty faces and knock out bodies, go look at cocktail waitresses in Las Vegas.

I can throw a rotten tomato in Chicago and hit a blues guitarist that just makes your fall over because they are so talented, amazing to hear and skilled. New Orleans, jazz people that play on the street that are capable of any top working backup band, or club. Branson has country musicians up the hills that can play as good as pretty much anything you'll hear in Nashville. You want classical, tryouts for most of the major symphony orchestras in the US draw thousands of hopeful applicants for a chair. The ones that aren't good enough for a violin will take a second or viola seat and be happy to get that. Rock and roll? If you can work and cover your expenses, you're a success. But don't quit your day job.

Dime a dozen for musicians isn't just an old term, it's pretty much still true. Microstock is even cheaper because with technology someone can take better photos, but music demands a deeper soul and much more personal investment in practice and experience.

If somebody doesn't have something different, cutting edge or marketable, they are just another starving artist. Pick your area, painting, drawing, music, photography, metals, pottery, oils, basket weaving, writing, or anything creative. There are just far too many, very talented and capable people. I've seen thousands of them. I'm in awe of their skills and talent. I can turn a corner tomorrow and see a thousand more.

There's no end to the number of creative people who are far above the really good or talented level.

That's the competition. Nothing is easy.

McCartney had a whole long list of songs available for licensing...none of which I'd heard. All stuff from his post-Wings days. I might recognize some of it now since I've renewed my nearest in his music, but at the time I didn't know any of them, and none of the titles sounded like they'd be appropriate for our commercials. A shame...I really wanted to license something of his.

Listen to Band on the Run.  :) I also don't know much of his recent music but I think he did OK with Live and Let Die for a James Bond Movie. Where do I see the list? I'd like to see what it was, because it's all probably things I've never heard. Have a link to the license offering.

Here's the tour that you might like. Melissa Etheridge

https://melissaetheridge.com/events/

One of the best ever, ever.

« Reply #11 on: April 16, 2017, 15:08 »
0

I can throw a rotten tomato in Chicago and hit a blues guitarist that just makes your fall over because they are so talented, amazing to hear and skilled. New Orleans, jazz people that play on the street that are capable of any top working backup band, or club. Branson has country musicians up the hills that can play as good as pretty much anything you'll hear in Nashville. You want classical, tryouts for most of the major symphony orchestras in the US draw thousands of hopeful applicants for a chair. The ones that aren't good enough for a violin will take a second or viola seat and be happy to get that. Rock and roll? If you can work and cover your expenses, you're a success. But don't quit your day job.

Dime a dozen for musicians isn't just an old term, it's pretty much still true. Microstock is even cheaper because with technology someone can take better photos, but music demands a deeper soul and much more personal investment in practice and experience.


so true, and the best ones are usually the hungriest. look at youtube, great music like robert johnson, or videos of buddy guy, bb king, even chuck berry ,etc.. get far less views than say
some copycat dressed in halter top ...
last i looked each video got like 2 million viewers in 6 months. i don't think robert johnson even got 200 in 6 years.

« Reply #12 on: April 16, 2017, 18:24 »
0

I can throw a rotten tomato in Chicago and hit a blues guitarist that just makes your fall over because they are so talented, amazing to hear and skilled. New Orleans, jazz people that play on the street that are capable of any top working backup band, or club. Branson has country musicians up the hills that can play as good as pretty much anything you'll hear in Nashville. You want classical, tryouts for most of the major symphony orchestras in the US draw thousands of hopeful applicants for a chair. The ones that aren't good enough for a violin will take a second or viola seat and be happy to get that. Rock and roll? If you can work and cover your expenses, you're a success. But don't quit your day job.

Dime a dozen for musicians isn't just an old term, it's pretty much still true. Microstock is even cheaper because with technology someone can take better photos, but music demands a deeper soul and much more personal investment in practice and experience.


so true, and the best ones are usually the hungriest. look at youtube, great music like robert johnson, or videos of buddy guy, bb king, even chuck berry ,etc.. get far less views than say
some copycat dressed in halter top ...
last i looked each video got like 2 million viewers in 6 months. i don't think robert johnson even got 200 in 6 years.

Times change. "As an itinerant performer who played mostly on street corners, in juke joints, and at Saturday night dances, Johnson had little commercial success or public recognition in his lifetime." Hardly any good recordings as they were 78s, before tape recorders were invented, no Youtube. On the other hand (no pun intended) Django Reinhardt was fairly popular but I wonder how many people on this forum have a clue about one of the greatest guitar players of all time, or the songs he wrote?

Famous photographers aren't necessarily the best or the greatest artists. They are the best and greatest promoters, or the people who got public attention and took advantage of marketing to build a reputation. Not that they aren't good or weren't but most are over hyped or regarded because of the public perception. Oftyen based on what some critic or someone else says they like.

« Reply #13 on: April 19, 2017, 16:31 »
0
Times change. "As an itinerant performer who played mostly on street corners, in juke joints, and at Saturday night dances, Johnson had little commercial success or public recognition in his lifetime." Hardly any good recordings as they were 78s, before tape recorders were invented, no Youtube. On the other hand (no pun intended) Django Reinhardt was fairly popular but I wonder how many people on this forum have a clue about one of the greatest guitar players of all time, or the songs he wrote?

Famous photographers aren't necessarily the best or the greatest artists. They are the best and greatest promoters, or the people who got public attention and took advantage of marketing to build a reputation. Not that they aren't good or weren't but most are over hyped or regarded because of the public perception. Oftyen based on what some critic or someone else says they like.

so true. i too remember what someone told me a long time ago, "it's not you have to be the greatest, just get the best marketing
people in town. "
django had no thumb either, didn't he? and without those slim neck ibanez or floyd rose and battery of sound enhancement pedals..
yet he , wes, joe pass, oh, lenny breau..the unforgotten genius... could play better , cleaner, faster ..like paco de lucia too.
but all these great masters had no hair,
and they don't look so good dress in tights, and looking like carmen miranda, speaking in a castrato voice..
and less we forget, having more hair than dolly parton.

of course, the radio, and nowaday, internet, did not hire a dj, reviewer,etc.. who knew the difference between playing guitar
and playing air guitar. photographers are the too... although there were some exceptions..
i think we have a history of better photographers who became famous than better musicians who became famous.

« Reply #14 on: April 22, 2017, 20:36 »
0
Big money in music. Fans pay for guitar legend Allan Holdsworth's funeral Guitar Legend but family can't even afford a funeral? http://www.msn.com/en-us/music/news/fans-pay-for-guitar-legend-allan-holdsworths-funeral-and-then-some/ar-BBA8yfV?OCID=ansmsnnews11


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
1359 Views
Last post May 20, 2014, 14:20
by Julied83
5 Replies
1327 Views
Last post May 22, 2014, 20:31
by onepointfour
89 Replies
21597 Views
Last post May 11, 2015, 11:04
by alijaber
1 Replies
858 Views
Last post April 15, 2017, 10:32
by ranchito
1 Replies
4916 Views
Last post April 15, 2017, 10:28
by ranchito

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors