Broadcast Quality Comments , please

[brendanlynch]

Hi trispeed #173,Thanks for responding. The problem is that you still didn't answer the question I asked. You'll notice that in my original post to this thread, my question is about the fact that the Recording Quality was referenced as 'Not Master/Broadcast'. Even the title of the post refers to this. At this point I'm well aware now that you didn't think the instrumental construction of the tracks met the remit. But, in fairness, that has nothing to do with the overall recording quality which is referenced in the critique.So what should the return critique actually be? 'Stylistically not on target' or 'Not Master/Broadcast'. Your response seems to be focused on the instrumental parts and not on the recording quality. Most members who responded to this agreed that the quality was absolutely fine. The very next post after yours from Patrick Baker simply repeated what most have said. But you seem to have missed the point of my complaint entirely.If it has nothing to do with recording quality, when then, did you reference that in the critique??I'm really concerned about how the Taxi screeners interpret the listings that we receive.

[davewalton]

Mar 13, 2009, 10:40am, brendanlynch wrote:I'm really concerned about how the Taxi screeners interpret the listings that we receive.Two things...1. Taxi's 15-year history is supported by their listing clients, many of whom are multi-repeat and/or regular listers... they seems to be just fine with the music they receive from the screeners. 2. If "The Challenger" is a reference to the Dodge Challenger... I commend your taste in the American Muscle car. I used to have a 1970 Challenger (in the 70's). It was an awesome car. The new Challenger is awesome too. Anyway, Invincible just isn't a modern orchestral hybrid. It really has a dated feel, a lot like Huey Lews and the News (that's what I was thinking when listening). So regardless of what was checked, that never would have made it through simply because you missed the target with the style and sounds. Once we miss the target, nothing else matters after that.I think that "The Challenger" had a shot... it may have missed on the "high energy" aspect of this. So quality issues aside, it might not have made it anyway. I think it's border line... not a super-stong, really obvious miss by the screener. Something where he/she erred on the side of caution (on behalf of their listing client)If you really do want the clarification you're looking for, ask Taxi about "The Challenger". Why the broadcast quality checkmark... who knows? I *might* bring that to Taxi's attention (in a professional and polite way) so that if the screener did check the wrong box, that they can give the screener a "be careful with your checkboxes" reminder. FWIW,DavePS - I'm not sure that I have any *really* good examples for a listing like this. I'm hunting around for something that I can post as some kind of reference so I'm not just saying what doesn't work. Hang tight and give me a little time to dig something up (between doing everything else). I'll try to post something though. ====EDIT====Caveat: There's no way of knowing if the short snippet I'm posting would have made it through. I'm pretty sure this is the kind of thing that would be a strong forward for this but without knowing for sure... take it with a grain of salt:www.DaveWaltonMusic.com/PrivateArea/Ele ... le.mp3This doesn't answer the checkbox question but if all the music is dead on target, then we don't have to worry about checkbox questions. HTH,Dave

[trispeed]

Mar 13, 2009, 10:40am, brendanlynch wrote:Hi trispeed #173,Thanks for responding. The problem is that you still didn't answer the question I asked. You'll notice that in my original post to this thread, my question is about the fact that the Recording Quality was referenced as 'Not Master/Broadcast'. Even the title of the post refers to this. At this point I'm well aware now that you didn't think the instrumental construction of the tracks met the remit. But, in fairness, that has nothing to do with the overall recording quality which is referenced in the critique.So what should the return critique actually be? 'Stylistically not on target' or 'Not Master/Broadcast'. Your response seems to be focused on the instrumental parts and not on the recording quality. Most members who responded to this agreed that the quality was absolutely fine. The very next post after yours from Patrick Baker simply repeated what most have said. But you seem to have missed the point of my complaint entirely.If it has nothing to do with recording quality, when then, did you reference that in the critique??I'm really concerned about how the Taxi screeners interpret the listings that we receive. Hi Brendan, I didn't critique your songs in the first place BUT, the first tune has very old sounding samples, so the recording is not broadcast quality. The second tune has some string parts but they are very artificial sounding and wouldn't be appropriate for a broadcast quality listing, either. Neither of them are hybrid electronica/ orchestral so they are not stylistically appropriate for this listing. They would want to hear realistic sounding orchestral elements; check out some James Newton Howard for a good benchmark. I think the Peter Pan soundtrack has some good examples. There's your free custom critique. Hope this helps! All the best, #173

[t4mh]

BrendanYou are making the same mistakes I have made. Your two tunes are excellent! When it comes to the type of electronic music that you've produced you are da man! There is nothing wrong with your production. When they put the word "orchestral" in the listing, they mean it... It doesn't matter how good your stuff is, without an orchestra in there they are going to reject. You can do this!Keep up the great work!Keith

[brendanlynch]

I thank everyone for their input on this particular issue. It has been insightful and positive.To #173, thank you for finally clearing up what is regarded as broadcast recording quality. I think if I had simply known from the word go that a particular brass sound, or string sample was 'not up to scratch' then I could have avoided this whole thing. But I guess I was under the impression that it had to do with EQ, level - things of a 'recording' nature that might have affected the broadcastability of the track.At least I now know. Thank you. It took a while, but we got there in the end. The member who did indeed have tracks forwarded for this listing is greatly deserving of that. I did listen to his submissions and realised that my perception was off the mark from a musical construction perspective. So I have no issues there. But finally, I can now understand what Taxi means by 'broadcast recording quality'.If anything, perhaps Steinberg should be made aware that the samples they ship with Cubase 4 are simply not up to scratch. I guess Yamaha won't like that either!Case closed . . . let's move on. Thanks to you all

[t4mh]

BrendanI think there is still something to be hashed out here. I really enjoyed your tracks buddy! This whole sound library thing has got me a little stymied... I just bought a MOTIF XS a couple of months ago and along with it I have the most advanced patches that have ever been made for it. I have had people in this forum tell me that some of those advanced sounds are really "off the shelf" sounding. I just don't agree... Ya know a really good sounding guitar will always be a sound we like. The same is true of bass and drums recorded and mixed properly. I don't think that the human vocal cords have been changed and so the sound of a really good singer is something we will always like even though there are auto tune technologies out there! The same is true of keyboards. We will always like a Hammond B3 for instance and it will work well in a lot of tracks. It may however, be in danger of "dating" a song. Now, I do hear some people try to use unrealistic sounding, synth generated strings to submit for orchestral listings. That won't work. But again a good sounding violn has worked for several hundred years! I think my new keyboard sounds TERRIFIC and I gonna use it!So what makes a track Broadcast Quality? I think that it is the technical recording issues that you have already spoken about along with a musician's ability to play and bring the track alive. If screener X doesn't like your patches I think there is a good chance that screener Y will...Keep doin' it!Keith