Broadcast quality?...yes/no...Got an answer

[rld]

Thanks guys,Sure, there are mix issues that all us bedroom producers have... but I think there is nothing so drastic as to disqualify this from BQ.Andreh mentioned the intro being so brash as to make someone turn it off after 2 seconds...I hope the screeners don't do that, but I don't like being blasted without warning either, so maybe I'll revisit that.I've posted a note in the "screeners shoutout" forum asking for a clarification...will I get one? I hope so.

[rld]

Hey Warren,Here is a Soundclick link.http://soundclick.com/share?songid=5887030Careful now...it starts off loud.

[davekershaw]

I can't think a loud start would justify a "not broadcast quality" return.Lots of songs just blast in there.This track still sounds fine to me. Maybe it is broadcast quality already, but that one screener is convincing everyone it isn't, and we're looking for a reason that isn't there!The next screener may forward it.Here's hoping!

[rld]

For you Steve, since you're such a groovy guy... MODERN ROCK/ELECTRONICA/METAL SONGS are needed immediately by a Music Supervisor who is currently working on an Independent Film. They are looking for songs in the range/style of a modern day version of Ted Nugent’s “Stranglehold.” NO COVERS please. The music will be used during a comedic “club fight” scene in the film. Stylistically, think of a sexy/low/dirty “rock growler” groove. They DO NOT want classic rock songs, 70’s jams, slow rock songs, or extremely heavy metal songs. They will mostly be using the song as an instrumental for the background of the fight scene, so the instrumentation should be strong enough to stand on it’s own. They prefer songs with vocals, but exceptional instrumentals will work. Broadcast quality needed [excellent home recordings are OK].

[rld]

Mine is faster, yes...but that's not the point.

[sgs4u]

Mar 6, 2009, 10:59am, rld wrote:Mine is faster, yes...but that's not the point. Yours is twice as fast. That might not matter to the BQ thing, but it might matter a lot to a screener. And I agree, it's not the point. Call the office.

[rld]

Mar 6, 2009, 11:10am, sgs4u wrote:Yours is twice as fast. That might not matter to the BQ thing, but it might matter a lot to a screener. I totally agree Steve, and if "Stylistically Off Target /Material Not Compelling/Distinctive Enough" were the reason for the return, I wouldn't have given it a second thought.Like I said, I've posted in the "screener shoutout" forum, so I'm gonna give that a day or two.I appreciate your help bud.

[sgs4u]

ps: I have never had a return that I agree with, when I get it. Not once.

[mojobone]

Well the guitars seem a little hot/harsh in the top end, and while it's not lacking punch over my monitors, it's certainly broadcast quality, IMO. The vocals and guitars could sit a bit better in the track, again, doesn't take it out of contention. It's certainly not the tempo of the a la, but probably more appropriate for a fight scene than Stranglehold, in any case. Could maybe not be deemed 'modern' enough, but "not broadcast quality"?

[rld]

I'm updating this as I appreciate everyone's comments and thought you might be interested.I emailed Robin asking for a clarification...this is the meat of the reply....The screener's concern has to do with the drums. He felt that the overall feel of the drum track was too programmed, that it could be humanized more...Needless to say I don't agree with that assessment, and I don't think anyone commenting on this thread thought the drums were "too programmed".In fact Big Blue Barry, who is a drummer said,"REALLY good job of programming the drums" So there ya go...I got an answer...not the one I expected, but such is life.