Return for stylistically off target...hrmpf.

[jnmorrison]

PUBLIC DOMAIN and/or ORIGINAL, SOLO CLASSIC PIANO INSTRUMENTAL CUES are needed by the Owner of a NON-Exclusive Boutique Music Library that’s actively growing their catalog. They’re on the hunt for Down-to-Mid-Tempo Classical Piano Cues that’d you hear on the same playlists as pieces by composers like (but not limited to): Bach: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7M9IEvKNL0 Mozart: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw-CS4Oe8F4 Handel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oxuZmlv8G8 Give them well-played Cues that sound indistinguishable from a real piano, with wonderful, inviting, and mellow melodic lines. Anything that is obviously synthetic or MIDI-driven won’t work for this pitch. Also, please avoid anything that’s overly busy or frenetic, as they’re looking for simple pieces that lay nicely under dialog. Your submissions should be at least 2 minutes in length. Natural endings/ring outs, with no fades are recommended. Do NOT copy or rip off the referenced composers in any way, shape, or form. Use them only as a general guide for tempo, tone, and overall vibe. Broadcast Quality is needed (great sounding home recordings are fine). They offer a NON-EXCLUSIVE 50/50 deal. Writers will also get a percentage of any sync fees, which will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. You must own or control your master and/or copyright (if you submit an original piece) to submit to this pitch. You must own or control the master recording (if you submit a Public Domain piece) to submit to this pitch. Please submit one to three Instrumental Cues online or per CD. All submissions will be screened on a Yes/No basis - No full critiques. Submissions must be received no later than 11:59PM (PST), on Sunday, March 27, 2016. TAXI #Y160327SP

Both my submissions were returned because they are "stylistically off target".
I did recordings of Liszt and Debussy. (on my taxi page if you're interested in hearing) (Clair de Lune and Consolation No.3)

Here's the screener's remarks:
Beautiful piece, but pretty far removed from the time period/style asked for in the listing. We're more than a hundred years removed from those old guys. Wonderful music but they looking for Classical (as in period).

And

We're closer (by about 50 years) time wise, but this (also great) piece is a bit active for this listing which is specifying nothing 'overly busy or frenetic'.

What kills me on this one is that the ad DOES NOT specifically state that they wanted CLASSICAL ERA compositions/style.
Point 1 - they list Bach (Baroque)
Point 2 - they say "Cues that’d you hear on the same playlists as pieces by composers like (but not limited to)"
Point 3 - Handel is also listed as ANOTHER Baroque composer...

So how am I supposed to know that they SPECIFICALLY wanted Classical era pieces when 2/3 of the reference cues were BAROQUE ERA??????

I'm obviously not as choked as I'd be if I had written something specifically for this listing...but still - had the listing been more clear - I would have simply recorded some Mozart or Handel...since that's apparently what they wanted.

lesson learned I guess
Oh well...submit, forget, repeat.
Back to the drawing board.

[Paulie]

I feel your pain... the screeners usually get it right. But I agree with you on this one. I got a return recently, part of the comment said "your track sounds too much like the stuff currently out there." I didn't catch the part of the listing that said "we want original fresh stuff, forget about the a las and give us something new, but not so new that it's not considered mainstream enough."

Move on, keep these for later.

[SubRivers]

Your pieces sound very good but the listing references composers of the 18th century.

Late Baroque/Early Classical

Your pieces.
Liszt in 19th century
Debussy was composing into the 20th century.

Romantic/Early Modern


The screener says that is off target by time.

[jnmorrison]

I understand the rejection. That's not what this was about.

My problem is with clarity in the listing
They did NOT specify clearly enough in the listing what they wanted.
If you read it they ask for pieces that could be included in playlists with composers such as (but not limited to) Bach et al. which is EXACTLY what I gave them.
As it would be TOTALLY reasonable to have Bach, Lizt, Mozart, Chopin, Debussy, and Heyden ALL in the same playlist!

When most companies/music supes ask for "classical" they mean "instrumental" but with a pre-modern compositional flare.
So when they listed baroque composers and a classical composer - it led me to believe they were taking "classical" in the "instrumental" sense.

In this case - apparently they truly wanted "Classical" in terms of time period...hence my confusion and their subsequent rejection of my submission.

If the listing had been more clear, as stated earlier - I would have submitted public domain CLASSICAL peices...in orther words I probably would have just given them mozart.

My disappointment comes from the fact that the listing was not clear enough for me to understand that they wanted pieces from that SPECIFIC era...which I CLEARY could have given them had the listing been clearer.

Understand what I mean?
(I wasn't looking for clarification...I most definitely understand the differences in the periods/eras! I have an extensive music education...it's not a matter of me not knowing)

[SubRivers]

I understand about listings not always being clear and have seen criteria not even hinted at in a listing being used as reason to reject.

But here it seems pretty clear they were asking for Late Baroque/Early Classical period pieces given the references.


The screener said your pieces are a hundred years too late to fit into the Classical era playlist let alone a Baroque/Early Classical era.

They didn't say Classical era only.

[jnmorrison]

And you're saying the same thing again.

Thanks for your time.

I appreciate it.

Now please stop trolling me.

[SubRivers]

Jeez

[andygabrys]

And you're saying the same thing again.

Thanks for your time.

I appreciate it.

Now please stop trolling me.

Wow. You have to be cool with people responding if you post on the forum. If you aren't cool, or don't want to hear what people say, then you have to wonder why you are posting. If you honestly have a beef with the way TAXI writes listings, you would be making better use of your time to call them directly and try and sort it out.

This listing was straight forward - it might not have been straight forward to you. And that's fine. But in the grand scheme of briefs, this was straight forward. You already dissected all the important points yourself - the duality of the use of the term "Classical" etc.

You also stated something that is the principal reason why you missed on this pitch:

My problem is with clarity in the listing
They did NOT specify clearly enough in the listing what they wanted.
If you read it they ask for pieces that could be included in playlists with composers such as (but not limited to) Bach et al. which is EXACTLY what I gave them.
As it would be TOTALLY reasonable to have Bach, Lizt, Mozart, Chopin, Debussy, and Heyden ALL in the same playlist!

Honestly - if that is your standpoint that its acceptable to have a mix of Baroque, Romantic, Classical, Romantic, Impressionist, and Classical on the "same playlist" then you have to be able to accept the return.

The ref pieces restricted that list to Baroque and Classical era. Neither of your pieces came from those eras did they?

What you stated regarding your playlist is the "classical" (lol) equivalent of putting Led Zeppelin, the Foo Fighters, and Wolfmother on the same playlist. Do they belong?

I wish you better luck in the future.

Sorry to be an ass if you are taking it that way.

[cassmcentee]

One good way to possibly avoid this sort of confusion when the info on a listing is in question...
Post the question here in the forum and clarify with forum peeps before investing too much time in the wrong direction...
You'll get good info from reliable folks around here and then spend your money more on target!
That's how I would deal with it in the future, plenty of options...
Sincerely,
Cass