Another Return...thoughts on feedback

Liked your review? Rave about it! Hated it, let us know!

Moderators: admin, mdc, TAXIstaff

Cameloide
Getting Busy
Getting Busy
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2020 12:09 pm
Gender: Male
Contact:

Another Return...thoughts on feedback

Post by Cameloide » Wed Dec 23, 2020 2:03 pm

Hey Everybody, I've been lurking around in the forum for about 6 months, but this is my 1st time posting. My long-time writing partner has been a member of TAXI for about 6 months now and so far he's submitted 17 of our co-writes to 30 briefs, with 6 forwards resulting in one song (the very 1st submission) being signed by a library. We also have 2 songs signed to a boutique licensing agency through a relationship formed before he joined taxi, one of those songs being the same song we got signed through taxi. Interestingly, the boutique agency passed on it the 1st time, and 6 months later we resubmitted (same mix) for another brief and they picked it up. We've submitted that song to 3 taxi briefs with 1 forward.

So what have I learned so far? And would I recommend joining TAXI? The short answer is, if you can afford it, yes. You will learn a lot from the experience of writing to briefs and dealing with rejection. You will also learn that the music industry is like a perpetual kick to the groin, and that, like many industries (though probably more than most), there are a LOT of hacks working in the field...a lot of failed musicians, and a lot of people with just bad cliche taste in music making the decisions. And what about the TAXI feedback? I've seen a lot of post questioning the quality of the feedback, and I must say that, when combined with the Song Forwards list, it is, in my opinion, unreliably random. Take this brief as an example:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Bunch of ANTHEMIC MODERN ROCK INSTRUMENTALS are needed by a great Publisher with an awesome track record of really big placements in TV Commercials!

They’re looking for Mid-to-Up-Tempo Instrumentals that could fit stylistically on a playlist with the following examples:

2020 Chevy Silverado HD - Ready to Work | Chevrolet

"The Champion" by The Score

"Another Level" by Oh The Larceny

Although some of the references have vocals, this request is for Instrumentals only.

Give them well-produced, contemporary Rock Instrumentals with an anthemic, epic vibe and sound. Killer rhythms and guitar riffs are a must for this pitch. You'd probably be wise to stick with typical Rock-band instrumentation, but some cool, modern ear candy sprinkled in here and there couldn't hurt. If you're using any virtual instruments or samples, they need to be high quality and state-of-the-art as nothing dated or low-quality will work for this request.

TAXI Tip: You can use some simple, non-lyrical vocal chants to add additional "in-your-face" energy to your Tracks. Please do not submit full vocal performance songs, as only vocal elements like, “whoas,” “yeahs,” “heys,” “woo-hoos,” etc.,
will work for this pitch. They're not a requirement, just a suggestion.

Submissions should be about 2 minutes long, give or take. Non-Faded, Button/Stinger endings will work best for this pitch. Do NOT copy the referenced acts or songs in any way, shape, or form. Use them only as a guide for tempo, tone, and overall vibe. Broadcast Quality is needed.

The specific deal points will be handled on a case-by-case basis. You must own or control your Master and Composition to submit to this opportunity. Please submit as many Instrumentals as you’d like, online or per CD. All submissions will be screened by TAXI. Submissions must be received no later than 11:59 PM (PST) on Monday, December 14th, 2020. TAXI # S201214AR
TAXI # S201214AR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We submitted this song:
https://s.disco.ac/laooarpmbgdy

and got a return that said:

I think you could improve this song by "Taking a more contemporary approach. Check out some of the references provided".

I returned this song because "This is not quite in the 'contemporary rock' anthemic style requested".

- style/genre is off target with the listing
- not contemporary as requested
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not contemporary enough, huh? Well, I guess I should check out the Forward Blog (here's where the unreliability comes in) and see what did get forwarded. As usual, when I do there are inevitably a few songs that are really well done and I think yeah I would've forwarded that too, but then there are almost always songs that get forwarded that are either off target genre-wise or subpar in objective ways (whether it be mixing, production, poor performances, fake instruments, etc.) making it highly unlikely that any professional would ever use them for sync.

For the above brief there were 5 songs forwarded, 3 of which make sense and 2 that are either subpar productions-wise or more off target than our submission. I'm not claiming our song was a masterpiece, because I'm not that attached to it. It's not a rock genre I like....at all really, and it was only written for sync purposes. So please Cosmicdolphin, feel free to rip this one apart & let me know where we missed the boat.

But regardless, the notion that we forgot to listen to the references is just cheap and insulting. Maybe they should follow their own advice and listen to the references, particularly "The Champion" by the Score, because not only did we listen to it, but as an experiment, we loaded it into the DAW and from it we took the same
- tempo
- key
- song form/structure (similar effected intro, the riff being a 1 bar progression, and the EDM snare bullshit with no kick on prechorus, the drops, etc.)
- beat (until I had my drummer change it up a bit and replace it with a live kit - supplemented with clap samples etc.)
- instrumentation (distorted bass, 2nd filtered guitar coming in midway on verses)
- some similar mix tricks (the filtered intro with the build up swoosh, dropping down to distorted bass on verse, the prolonged build up at the end of the bridge)

So my point is simply this, the feedback by itself can be useful, but only if you figure out how to read between the lines and are confident enough to dismiss it when it's bullshit. Like when they say something like "the midi trumpet sounds too quantized and not real enough" when the, in fact, real trumpet is being played by a professional and wasn't quantized at all, one could interpret that as simply, "something about the horns isn't working (and their ears aren't developed enough to really know how to tell anybody how to actually fix it)." That's still helpful, because they've at least helped identify a problem, though not a solution. But when one looks at the Song Forward List and finds unsuitable material always in the mix getting forwarded it can seem random and confusing. And I think that it just comes down to the fact that we're dealing with people, in an industry (like many) with a lot of hacks. So you got to have thick skin and the passion to just keep plugging away.

User avatar
cassmcentee
Serious Musician
Serious Musician
Posts: 3513
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:40 am
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Another Return...thoughts on feedback

Post by cassmcentee » Wed Dec 23, 2020 3:39 pm

Didn't read your entire post, more or less the first part...
Listened to 45 seconds
It's not "Contemporary" in that the mix needs help
The volume of the instruments is kinda all over the place
Some voicings are just too quiet, feels like it's a bit muddy
We really have to have "Tight" mixes to pass the Contemporary bar
What kind of monitor setup are you mixing through?
Robert "Cass" McEntee
"Making music on a spinning ball of Magma"
https://soundcloud.com/robert-cass-mcentee
https://www.taxi.com/members/DosPalmasRecordings

User avatar
JohnDroese
Getting Busy
Getting Busy
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2020 4:07 pm
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Another Return...thoughts on feedback

Post by JohnDroese » Wed Dec 23, 2020 8:24 pm

Cool Track!!! I would say it is not contemporary as well...... I liked the mix but it sounds a little bass heavy on my NS 10's so I imagine it could use some tightening I'm going to give you a couple of lessons I've learned and had someone tell me that helped me get tracks signed
1. You wrote this instrumental cue like a song..... They are not the same thing you have an A section and a B section then you go right back to the A section and its just like the first one
Editors have copy and paste If they need that exact part again they will take it from the first verse..... a positive you had very clear edit points
2. There was no energy change or build..... when it went to the B section I wanted the song to lift you put that EDM snare in there that started to build but then it didn't...... The advice given to me was change gears. take it out of first and see what that puppy has got... :D
3. When you got to the C section that did build you should have ended there ..... there is no reason to back into the A section kind of fizzles out.....editors want to end on a hit
4. Taxi is just one avenue to pitch your songs DO NOT base your opinion about the industry on this experience alone..... I will tell you there is a library out there that will take that song with a few changes..... You need to start pitching directly to libraries.....Taxi should be one tool you use.....Taxi has helped me in my journey to sell my music but they won't do it for you
5. My last advice.... if you enjoy making this type of music I would tell you to put an album of 10 to 12 similar track together keep them around 2 minutes and shop them..... then build relationships with library owners and rinse and repeat..... You have the talent and the skills to succeed.... believe that and do it!!

Best of luck
John

User avatar
lesmac
Serious Musician
Serious Musician
Posts: 1787
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2013 7:53 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Tasmania Australia
Contact:

Re: Another Return...thoughts on feedback

Post by lesmac » Thu Dec 24, 2020 3:38 am

Interesting first post.

Robertj64
Impressive
Impressive
Posts: 190
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2020 7:52 am
Contact:

Re: Another Return...thoughts on feedback

Post by Robertj64 » Thu Dec 24, 2020 5:44 am

The forum here is mostly helpful and they will try to assist in helping to comprehend the critique. Many times, it means a lot of different critiques outside the screener comments. To see what the screener actually sends in the forward blog is the eye opener. To limit frustrations, i would take it all with a grain of salt (advice is free), go direct and compare your tracks to what is in an actual library. That will go along way to gauge where you truly are with the quality of your track. Otherwise the inconsistencies and "randomness" will lead to insanity...lol

Cheers and best of luck!

Robert

Cameloide
Getting Busy
Getting Busy
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2020 12:09 pm
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Another Return...thoughts on feedback

Post by Cameloide » Thu Dec 24, 2020 10:53 am

Thanks for the responses guys, and the critiques, much appreciated.

Cassmcentee, if by "not contemporary enough" they really mean "the mix needs help", then I think it would've been more helpful to check the actual box that says "recording/mix needs help" instead of clicking the box that says "not contemporary as requested". So you're kind of making my point for me, that the "expert" feedback is unreliably random and confusing.

According to my memory (and the dictionary) "contemporary" means "current" and current music is known to have a lot more and lower low-end than previous eras. So to me it's a safer bet to err on the side of too much low end as opposed to too little (as was the case with one of the subpar songs forwarded) when aiming for contemporary. Considering we got 3 guys on the team each with different brands of studio monitors and headphones, 2 of which have been mixing projects for paying clients for over a decade, (and after a couple more listens) I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree on the "muddyniness" critique. But that would've been valuable feedback if it were true. And I realize that analyzing music and putting it into words is very hard to do, but I don't really know what to make of "the volume of the instruments is kinda all over the place". The track is dynamic with a lot of movement? Well, as a famous mixer once said, "a static mix is a shitty mix". And I'm not sure what you mean by "tight" mix, less mud and every instrument squashed to death?

John, thanks for the detailed critique and encouragement. We wrote this instrumental like a song and not a cue, because the brief asked for instrumentals and not cue's. The track is bass heavy because it was modeled after "The Champion" which is also bass heavy. As far as the song structure, when sections happen, build ups, EDM snare part, edit points, etc. are almost all just like the reference track. So I assumed if they liked their own reference track then a similar flow would be appropriate, but I'll never know because it didn't make it past the "gatekeepers". As for submitting directly to libraries, yes, we need to do more of that, though my same critique about dealing with people/hacks still applies.

Again, my issue here is not that I think our submission was masterpiece, but just that it was objectively more fitting than 2 of the 5 songs forwarded. And that is just my experience more times than not when I get a return and check the forwards blog to see what was forwarded. There are almost always better tracks than mine and almost always tracks that are inferior in objective ways. So it's inconsistent, confusing and disheartening. Best you can do is, as Robert said, take it with a grain of salt.

Ted
Impressive
Impressive
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 8:32 am
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Another Return...thoughts on feedback

Post by Ted » Thu Dec 24, 2020 10:54 am

lesmac wrote:
Thu Dec 24, 2020 3:38 am
Interesting first post.
And I don't think he's wrong.

User avatar
AlanHall
Serious Musician
Serious Musician
Posts: 1149
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:46 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Great Black Swamp, northwest Ohio
Contact:

Re: Another Return...thoughts on feedback

Post by AlanHall » Thu Dec 24, 2020 3:27 pm

Cameloide wrote:
Thu Dec 24, 2020 10:53 am
As far as the song structure, when sections happen, build ups, EDM snare part, edit points, etc. are almost all just like the reference track.
That's a problem, because vocal songs and instrumental songs don't have the same form. Without a stream of text to parse, the brain needs more variety (see numerous threads and Taxi TV episodes on 'developmental arc'). That may not have been what the screener keyed in on, but it's a thing. Having said that, I like the piece, and with a bit of work - maybe without - a library should pick it right up. Just keep in mind for production quality, we must all start with 'perfect', and work from there.
And that is just my experience more times than not when I get a return and check the forwards blog to see ... it's inconsistent, confusing and disheartening.
I'm not apologizing for the judgement of any screeners, but I do believe that more than one screener may be responsible for the forwards. That's my rationale for accepting the 'inconsistent, confusing' part. So just forget, and repeat. And seek out libraries to build a personal one-on-one relationship with.

User avatar
cosmicdolphin
Serious Musician
Serious Musician
Posts: 4461
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 1:46 pm
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Another Return...thoughts on feedback

Post by cosmicdolphin » Thu Dec 24, 2020 3:27 pm

Cameloide wrote:
Wed Dec 23, 2020 2:03 pm
so far he's submitted 17 of our co-writes to 30 briefs, with 6 forwards resulting in one song (the very 1st submission) being signed by a library. .
That's a pretty decent forward rate and already getting one signed to a Library is a good achievement in 6 months..hopefully you can build on that relationship and get more music into them directly now?
Cameloide wrote:
Wed Dec 23, 2020 2:03 pm

We submitted this song: https://s.disco.ac/laooarpmbgdy

and got a return that said: I think you could improve this song by "Taking a more contemporary approach. Check out some of the references provided".

I returned this song because "This is not quite in the 'contemporary rock' anthemic style requested".

- style/genre is off target with the listing
- not contemporary as requested
Yeah I got 10 seconds in and I could tell it was off target for the listing. Sounds too trad....more like a 90s rock song than the ref tracks. It doesn't have enough the trademark sounds of what they were asking for..the main thing for me is the drums, just sounds like a drummer playing to a rock track and not a big bombastic in yer face kinda kit. No shouty vocalisations, no cinematic almost trailer like FX

Also the cue doesn't develop enough , if I just skip around then any one section sounds pretty much the same as any other - there's no build. So I would agree on this one with what the screener said.

There were some good tracks in the Forwards Blog but I gotta say I thought the first one listed was poorly mixed and off brief, I have no idea why that was Forwarded. The rest of them I didn't have an issue.
Cameloide wrote:
Wed Dec 23, 2020 2:03 pm


particularly "The Champion" by the Score, because not only did we listen to it, but as an experiment, we loaded it into the DAW and from it we took the same
- tempo
- key
- song form/structure (similar effected intro, the riff being a 1 bar progression, and the EDM snare bullshit with no kick on prechorus, the drops, etc.)
- beat (until I had my drummer change it up a bit and replace it with a live kit - supplemented with clap samples etc.)
- instrumentation (distorted bass, 2nd filtered guitar coming in midway on verses)
- some similar mix tricks (the filtered intro with the build up swoosh, dropping down to distorted bass on verse, the prolonged build up at the end of the bridge)
I can't fault your process but don't think of it as an experiment, just follow this method all the time and you'll get closer the more you do it. I posted a thread somewhere a while back about recreating a small section of a reference track to learn what's going on with them and to see how close you can get in an hour. It's worthwhile exercise as it forces you to really break it down and know how to put it back together.
Cameloide wrote:
Wed Dec 23, 2020 2:03 pm

And I think that it just comes down to the fact that we're dealing with people
Yeah those labour laws are a PITA , means you have employ real people and not AI's. I half agree with you but it's all subjective. Subjectively you were off target and too repetitive, but one of the Forwards was no more deserving IMHO either. I find it highly unlikely that track would be picked up by the Library, and most library tracks sit on a shelf without ever getting placed so there's three hurdles to get over and I suspect it will fall at the 2nd.

Mark

Cameloide
Getting Busy
Getting Busy
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2020 12:09 pm
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Another Return...thoughts on feedback

Post by Cameloide » Fri Dec 25, 2020 5:34 pm

cosmicdolphin wrote:
Thu Dec 24, 2020 3:27 pm
That's a pretty decent forward rate and already getting one signed to a Library is a good achievement in 6 months..hopefully you can build on that relationship and get more music into them directly now?
Yeah, we’re in the process of trying to decipher what the hell they want. I scanned through their catalog to see what the quality bar was like & submitted 2 more songs that we just knew were perfect for sync. And the response was “unfortunately they’re not up to our catalogue’s standards”. Which, considering the amount of subpar stuff in their catalogue, was humorous and again a bit confusing & disheartening. We then submitted one of those songs to a taxi brief & got it forwarded & the taxi feedback was “Good positive energy and catchy hook. Very strong sync potential. Track is really solid as is. Good driving energy, sound and hook. Solid lyrics for sync.“ So, who the hell knows, which is my overall point.
cosmicdolphin wrote:
Thu Dec 24, 2020 3:27 pm
the main thing for me is the drums, just sounds like a drummer playing to a rock track and not a big bombastic in yer face kinda kit.
Considering the ones that got forwarded sounded like Ez Drummer playing to rock tracks, I’m gonna have to disagree & say that the real drums in our track is one of the things setting it apart from the fake stuff. I know it’s common to use fake drums in a lot of genres but in the rock world almost nobody releases stuff done with ez drummer, unless they call them “demos”. Sure now they may trigger sounds to beef up the acoustic tones, but using ez drummer instead of a real drummer is a good way to signal that you’re not really in a rock band. Btw, the drummer was using Bonham’s signature snare & a big ass 24” kick drum...
cosmicdolphin wrote:
Thu Dec 24, 2020 3:27 pm
There were some good tracks in the Forwards Blog but I gotta say I thought the first one listed was poorly mixed and off brief, I have no idea why that was Forwarded. The rest of them I didn't have an issue.
I agree there were 3 that I would’ve forwarded myself, but the 1st listing wasn’t appropriate & neither was the middle one, which had hard panned gtrs that weren’t in sync with each other & a rushing kind of sloppy lead gtr part at the end (both amateurish issues), not to mention the 80’s chugging & kinda prog rock riff which totally missed the mark of the references.

But anyways, appreciate the feedback Mark. I expected you to undress me a little more, you must be in a generous Christmas spirit kind of mood.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests