“What's an interesting exercise is to ask your clients what it is about you and your music that makes them want to employ you – a great way to get testimonials and to reinforce in their minds why they want to work with you again ”

I agree with you.

How about ask some clients and post here what they said? I think we can learn a few things about this.

I will try to do so.

I think we're all circling the same issue, more or less. Deane said as much from his first go – and I at least obliquely make the same admonishment in my blurb. There's always the external/internal motivational dichotomy in this business. I *think* this topic was brandished to step aside from that at least for the moment.

I think the point here is to intentionally (and somewhat artificially) turn inward to bring out that “je ne sais quoi” element about yourself that should (eventually) separate you from other composers. At the end of the day we're each responsible for our own “branding” as it were.

Even unintentionally – everyone has their own unique point of view, born of varying experience, interests and background. But in the our world so much of that gets turned upside down and inside out at the behest of those who hire us that it's a beneficial exercise to stand aside from those external demands and express the “point of truth” that you come from.

At least – that's my take on it.

What do you mean, Vincent? Please expand on that.

I think *both* you *and* Scott are right, in your own way. There are as many factors that define “worthiness” for a particular gig as there are composers out there in the field.

However, I think there are variances in what makes a composer desirable to a certain cadre of collaborators versus what makes a composer's “sound” generally known to the viewing (and sometimes listening) public. The fact that there are many dimensions to this puzzle is what makes it so interesting.

I have my little stylistic things i don't hear others doing– mostly developed while in school. Opening to my score to BONE DRY for instance has these two “shifting clouds” chords (two remote chords slowly taking each other over). I have bunch of stuff I've done like this in many of my scores Robotech has a bunch of stuff like that too (waterfalls, etc). Also I am obsessed with this interlocking rhythm thing I've been doing for years and always pops in my head for action.

I think this what you were asking with your question.
S

Great post! This is a difficult subject to discuss publicly, because the effort to be specific can come across as self-aggrandizing (i.e. bragging). It can also feel like a Catch-22 – desiring to be considered a candidate for the widest possible array of gigs, while simultaneously marketing yourself in a way that gets people to *focus* on a few specific things when they hear/see/mention your name.

I'd like to think that I differentiate myself as an “old skool” composer for *both* electronic and traditional music media. As a student of Bob Moog I started with a pair of WWII-era tone generators, a 1/2 track tape deck and a splicing block (the method he saw Vladamir Ussachevsky use while studying physics at Columbia in the 1950s). And before that, when I was formally studying composition it was all about pencil and paper, music theory, orchestration and arranging, and the primacy of the melody/theme/motif. Even in an industry segment that's full of music producers working principally on computers, it is a fairly unique skill set – and it deeply influences my approach to composition.

And of course the final irony of this is that most directors and producers don't care about any of that. Eventually a principal *may* care *if* they hear something in your music that “rings out” for them personally, but that's more an accident of happenstance than something they consciously seek out. I remember being in a meeting with a producer (actually, a pair of producers) where one was running late – so we started through my demo reel with one in the room. The notes were to the effect of “It sounds really *epic* with that broad theme riding over the top.” And then later we restarted the reel when the other producer came in to the meeting. Her note was “I love all of the little busy stuff underneath that sounds, so… *musical*”. I've worked with them on several projects since then, and I still hear one describe me as “very detailed and intricate” while the other says “he's your guy for epic stuff”. And yet another producer in the same shop (who has never heard my music reel but knows my work in sound design and mixing) refers to me as “our sound guy”.

The object lesson here is that this exercise in finding and describing “your voice” is an important one. But have no illusions about what kind of traction that's going to get with the outside world. Any possible match between the way *you* perceive yourself and the way that others describe you falls under the category of “happy accident”, at least in the initial stages. The *real* treat is when you find a project to work on that truly meshes with your vision/approach as a composer. At that point things become really exciting, and start to feel “easy” for the lack of a better word. And as rarely as that occurs, it's sure to *never* happen if you don't go through the exercise as Deane has asserted here. Find your voice, state it plainly and consistently, both in your music *and* your marketing, and eventually the right creative collaborators will find you. I don't mean to come across as some “world expert” on this. It's more of a recent lost-and-found lesson for me, so I'm pressing the point here with the great opportunity Deane has presented.