Royalty free musics
Jan 11, 2017 04:09:12 #
Jan 11, 2017 05:06:16 #
Jan 12, 2017 06:22:44 #
Jan 12, 2017 08:54:17 #
daplight
Loc: Kansas
Read the fine print. Most require that you credit the music/source at the end of the video/presentation.
Jan 12, 2017 10:08:57 #
blackest wrote:
http://freemusicarchive.org/
Thanks forth at link. It looks like a great source.Jan 12, 2017 10:26:35 #
I subscribe to https://www.audioblocks.com/. Not free but comes with a license that you tube will accept if you violate a copyright.
Jan 12, 2017 14:51:53 #
Jan 16, 2017 15:58:26 #
I've used PremiumBeat, Pond5, iStock, and Tunefruit. Understand the music is royalty free, but not free. Once you buy a cut, however, it's yours to use as you like, as many times as you like, at least at the hobbyist level.
Jan 16, 2017 16:04:51 #
Well, if you buy a cut, then it's not free, which is good. I refuse to put any of my music online because it's common for people to steal it or make a "mashup" with it. Think of how you'd feel if somebody downloaded a photo you posted here and sold it as their own work—framed, on greeting cards, and so on.
Jan 16, 2017 16:22:45 #
Mihaly wrote:
Well, if you buy a cut, then it's not free, which is good. I refuse to put any of my music online because it's common for people to steal it or make a "mashup" with it. Think of how you'd feel if somebody downloaded a photo you posted here and sold it as their own work—framed, on greeting cards, and so on.
Understand your reluctance. If it makes you feel better, like the watermarks in stock photos, the sites I mentioned all use what I'll call audio watermarks (such as "Tunefruit.com") spoken throughout the tracks every few seconds, which I imagine would be difficult to strip out. That way a user can download a track for free and see if it fits his purposes, but he doesn't get the pure music track without a purchase. Tracks run anywhere from $20 to $75; I have no idea what the composers make on each sale, but it's an arrangement--if you'll excuse the pun--that seems to work for a lot of them.
Jan 16, 2017 16:46:21 #
I have no quarrel with what you've done—seems completely kosher to me. It's all the other stuff that gets my Hungarian temper stoked up. Example: I happened to turn on an NPR FM station in Boston, only to hear one of my chamber pieces being broadcast. What really pissed me off is that the "host" was reading from my program notes and passing them off as his "erudite" comments on the piece. So I got the telephone number of the station and called them up, asking when I could expect a check for the broadcast of my music. I was told that NPR doesn't have to pay royalties for the broadcast of concerts (or something like that.) I then asked the woman if the disk jockey who was playing my music worked for free. She haughtily said, "You mean the Program Host?" "No," I replied, "the damn disk jockey!" <<Click>> So it goes...
Jan 16, 2017 17:09:21 #
Mihaly wrote:
I happened to turn on an NPR FM station in Boston, only to hear one of my chamber pieces being broadcast....
Ouch. Yes, that would pin my meters also. A double steal, considering the use of your textual notes as well. So sorry--while I don't know the legalities in such cases, I would have hoped NPR would be a much better steward of the arts than, say, political candidates appropriating songs as their themes.
Jan 16, 2017 17:21:01 #
I have no use for NPR or PBS. I know for a fact that PBS is in violation of its charter. They are supposed to broadcast music that isn't available elsewhere. What have I seen on PBS when we still had a TV? Lawrence Welk. (OMG?!?) The Beach Boys. James Taylor (I'm a big fan of JT, but that's not the point) and other pop music that is hardly neglected. The only time I can recall the broadcast of a classical symphony was Mahler's Symphony No. 2 when JFK was assassinated. (That's dating me!) I'm sure I missed some other concerts of Mozart and Beethoven, but that's not "new music." Nobody loves Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, et al. more than I do, but, again, that music doesn't suffer from a lack of audience. All new music is not bad or ugly or "dissonant". It's just unfamiliar and unfamiliarity breeds contempt.
Jan 16, 2017 17:36:56 #
Mihaly wrote:
Well, if you buy a cut, then it's not free, which is good. I refuse to put any of my music online because it's common for people to steal it or make a "mashup" with it. Think of how you'd feel if somebody downloaded a photo you posted here and sold it as their own work—framed, on greeting cards, and so on.
Someone did that with my videos a few years ago and I was as upset as could be. They were using my stuff to advertise their video services. Called the website they were advertising on and let him know it was quite disappointing to have that happen. They were down within a couple of hours. The guys also went out of business because they could not come through with their product.
Jan 16, 2017 17:54:12 #
I'm glad you were able to resolve that quickly. And I'm happy those guys went out of business. It's so common to talk about how wonderful it is to be "creative" and "artistic", but the products of creative minds are all too often stolen or otherwise screwed with. I guess some comic would say that that's better than being ignored, but I don't think so. The only kind of creativity that is valued is the kind that can be turned into commercial profit. I have a button mounted on my studio wall that says, "It's Not Creative Unless It Sells". There was no irony intended in the creation of that button, but there is now as far as I'm concerned.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.