The Version From Inside the Iceberg

The NYT Magazine just ran a big piece on production music (gift link here). Here's what they couldn't see from where they were standing.

A journalist named Ryan Francis Bradley spent time with Extreme Music and came back with an interesting piece of reporting. If you work in production music, you should read it. If you don't, you should probably read it anyway—because the world it describes is larger, stranger, and more consequential than most people realize.

The article opens with a Shazam app moment... a song surfaces in an episode of Love Island (apt, specific, slightly uncanny in how perfectly it fits the scene) and when the writer tries to identify it using the app, nothing comes back. No Spotify result. No Apple Music hit. No SoundCloud trace. The song exists, is being heard by millions of people, and is essentially invisible to the usual systems we use to find music.*

That's a good entry point into a world that has been hiding in plain sight, the world I’ve been operating in full time for three decades now: production music. Sync music, library music, call it what you want… this niche of the music industry is the soundtrack to modern life in a way that almost nothing else is. It's in the shows, the ads, the tutorials, the corporate training videos, on YouTube, Instagram, TikTok. It's everywhere, and most people have never thought about where it comes from or who makes it.

The piece uses an iceberg metaphor to describe the economics: the visible part, above the waterline, is the touring pop star machine and the highlight streaming numbers. The 90 percent below the waterline is, in large part, production music. Catalog. Library composers. People building careers that don't look like what anyone pictures when they imagine a music career.

That metaphor is right. And it's where the outside view starts to run out of depth.

What the Article Couldn't See

I sold a catalog to Extreme Music a few years back. They rebranded it as their Mixtape Series. So when I read Russell Emanuel describing his company's philosophy (“reassuringly expensive,” quality over volume, the explicit rejection of AI-generated slop) I recognized it. Not as a business strategy, but as a standard I’d championed and ended up selling to Extreme after cold-calling Russell on a whim one afternoon.

Getting music into a library like Extreme isn't something that happens simply because your music is good. Good music is the entry requirement, the baseline, a starting point. What actually moves things is everything that comes after the music—and that's the part no outside reporting can fully capture, because it's not particularly dramatic and it doesn't make for compelling storytelling.

It's the unsexiness of metadata. It's endless clean versions and edits. It's detailed stems delivered correctly the first time. It's showing up on time and without drama across dozens and hundreds of deliveries, building the kind of reputation over years that means someone returns your call when a pitch goes out. It's understanding the difference between a track that works for a music supervisor’s project and a track that you personally love. Sometimes those overlap. Often they don’t.

“The business of production music has never had a shortage of good music. What it has always had a shortage of is composers who understand the work that comes after the music.”

I wrote that sentence for another Journal entry, but it applies here too. The Extreme catalog represents a very specific standard of craft and intentionality—both in the music and in everything surrounding it. That's what Emanuel is describing when he talks about being "reassuringly expensive." It's not just a pricing philosophy. It's a claim about the total package: music that was made with purpose, metadata that was curated with care, relationships that were maintained with professionalism.

Most composers who are struggling don't have a music problem. They have an everything-else problem. And the iceberg framing, as cinematic as it is, doesn't quite capture that… because it describes the industry's shape without explaining what it actually takes to build something durable inside it.

The Intentionality Argument

There's a line from composer Dylan Callaghan in the article that I keep coming back to:

"This isn't, like, a corner of the industry. This is the music industry.”

He's right. And I've been saying something close to that for about thirty years—from deep inside it, not as a mere observer. But the part that doesn't make it into the article is that being inside it doesn't automatically mean you're building something that will stand the test of time. Plenty of people are inside the iceberg and going nowhere. Volume without strategy. Output without intentionality. Tracks on your server in a folder that nobody's opening.

What separates catalogs that last from catalogs that get buried and forgotten isn't raw composing talent, it’s not innovative sound design, and it isn't even pure output. It's knowing why you're making what you're making, for whom, and toward what end. It's treating the business side of this work with the same seriousness you bring to the creative side. It's understanding that finishing a record (or ten!) is not the finish line… it’s the starting gun.

Our former BurstLabs collection didn't end up as Extreme's Mixtape Series simply because I had a lot of music to sell (in fact, when we did that deal BurstLabs didn’t even have 600 songs). It ended up there because the catalog had an identity—a specific enough point of view that it could be positioned and branded as its own thing inside one of the most selective libraries in the world. That doesn't happen by accident. It happens because someone made deliberate decisions, early and often, about what the music was for and what it was trying to be.

Why This Matters Right Now

The article spends some time on AI. Understandable, the topic is everywhere right now. The threat of AI-generated music flooding libraries and displacing human composers is real enough that Emanuel explicitly uses it as a contrast point… and in the best versions of this business, we’re the opposite of that. Human composers, premium pricing, quality and curation as differentiators.

That's the right response. But it puts the burden back on composers to be worth the premium… and that's a bar that requires more than craft. It requires the whole package. The professionalism, the business acumen, the strategic thinking about what you're building and why.

The composers who are going to navigate the next ten years successfully are the ones who understand that being a human who makes music isn't sufficient on its own. Being good isn't enough. The key differentiator is intentionality—in the music, in the business, in how you manage your catalog and your relationships and your reputation over time.

That's a longer conversation. It's also, not coincidentally, the conversation I spend most of my time having.

The NYT piece is a good starting point. This is the version from inside the iceberg.

*This happens with some regularity, apparently, as most of the “fan mail” I get these days for my library music work is from people trying to find a song that I had delivered to Extreme back during our time together under the Sony/ATV banner and for some reason they don’t put all their music on discovery sites or streamers. Confounding, imho.

———

Daniel Holter is the founder of The License Lab, a production music library based in Seattle, WA and distributed globally by Universal Production Music. Over a 30-year career, he has sold three catalogs to major publishers (Sony/ATV, Zomba/BMG, and Warner/Chappell) and continues to champion independent, human-crafted music for sync licensing.