Do you agree with the screener?

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

Moderators: admin, mdc, TAXIstaff

User avatar
DennisPMusic
Impressive
Impressive
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2021 4:45 am
Gender: Male
Location: Denmark
Contact:

Do you agree with the screener?

Post by DennisPMusic » Thu Sep 09, 2021 10:42 pm

I got a return from the listing TAXI # S210904AM today.
I feel that the screener hasn't listened to the reference track before he wrote his feedback???


LISTING:

Lots of AMBIENT MEDITATION INSTRUMENTALS are needed by a Digital Content Platform for several (up to) $500 placements in guided meditation programs they're producing.
NOTE: This Company is brand new to requesting music from TAXI, so this is a great opportunity to get connected with an awesome company!
This Company is looking for Instrumentals that would fall within the general stylistic wheelhouse of the following references:
"Polaris" by Celestial Realms
"Red Geranium" by Chris Coco
"Highlands" by Nagawa Meditation
"Yuna" by Levitating Moon
"FEET" by Hiroshi Yoshimura
Although some of the references have vocals, please submit Instrumentals only for this pitch.
Please submit well-produced Ambient Meditation Instrumentals with high-quality organic or electronic-based instrumentation – or a combination of both. If you're using any virtual instruments or samples, they need to be high-quality and current-sounding. Imagine the type of music you might hear in a spa or yoga studio – that's what this Company wants to hear!
TAXI Tip: Pieces with a "drone-like" sound or subtle melodic movement could both work for this request. Just be sure that they are relaxing, meditative, and wouldn't distract from the guided meditation voiceover!
IMPORTANT: Please do NOT include any sound effects in your music such as animal sounds, waterfalls, wind chimes, raindrops, etc.
All submissions should be at least 3 minutes in length and no longer than 7 minutes. Non-faded, buttoned endings will work best. Please do not copy the references in any way, shape, or form. Use them only as a general guide for feel, texture, and tone. Broadcast Quality is needed.


FEEDBACK:

What I like most about this song
I like the guitar parts, the subtlety, the ideas and the overall mix and blend. Nice job with the subtle theme and melodic content. Very musical.

I think you could improve this song by
This is good, but needs more contemporary synth sounds, more variation, more contour and more of a gradual and cohesive build throughout.

I returned or forwarded this song because
This needs a more subtle start, a more gradual build, less repetition, and more competitive synth sounds.


MY TRACK: https://www.taxi.com/members/a9Q_Ye0vSv ... ent-dreams

REFERENCE TRACK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wravuadM2mk
Last edited by DennisPMusic on Mon Oct 04, 2021 12:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Picardster
Impressive
Impressive
Posts: 169
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2019 5:37 am
Gender: Male
Location: Europe
Contact:

Re: Do you agree with the screener(416)?

Post by Picardster » Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:26 am

I can't. Just the repetitive moment I'd agree with. A two minute cue would have prevented that imvho

I also had submitted (I guess) 4 tracks in this listing. And the reasons for the returns were questionable, at least.

Maybe there were just too many submissions and the screener had a real problem with the quota to be passed on.....Who knows?

This stuff is easy to produce, as we know.

Just my five cents. I do like the sounds :-)

darkbluerooms
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2021 10:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Do you agree with the screener(416)?

Post by darkbluerooms » Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:09 pm

Sounds good to me. Matches the reference quite closely. And I categorically disagree with the screener that your sounds are dated/not competitive. I'm flummoxed.

User avatar
cosmicdolphin
Serious Musician
Serious Musician
Posts: 4450
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 1:46 pm
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Do you agree with the screener(416)?

Post by cosmicdolphin » Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:36 pm

I half agree with the screener

There is a vibe about the ref track which I think you've not captured. To my ears it comes from using reversed sounds , I think that's what's going on in the ref. Not a fan of that high bell synth you've used and if the pad type sound have more vibey FX on it ( something like Drip for example ) I think it would have sounded a bit more contemporary.

I still thinks it's quite a decent effort though.

Mark

User avatar
RickElliott
Getting Busy
Getting Busy
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2021 3:11 pm
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Do you agree with the screener(416)?

Post by RickElliott » Wed Sep 29, 2021 7:20 am

DennisPMusic wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 10:42 pm
I got a return from the listing TAXI # S210904AM today.
I feel that the screener hasn't listened to the reference track before he wrote his feedback???


LISTING:

Lots of AMBIENT MEDITATION INSTRUMENTALS are needed by a Digital Content Platform for several (up to) $500 placements in guided meditation programs they're producing.
NOTE: This Company is brand new to requesting music from TAXI, so this is a great opportunity to get connected with an awesome company!
This Company is looking for Instrumentals that would fall within the general stylistic wheelhouse of the following references:
"Polaris" by Celestial Realms
"Red Geranium" by Chris Coco
"Highlands" by Nagawa Meditation
"Yuna" by Levitating Moon
"FEET" by Hiroshi Yoshimura
Although some of the references have vocals, please submit Instrumentals only for this pitch.
Please submit well-produced Ambient Meditation Instrumentals with high-quality organic or electronic-based instrumentation – or a combination of both. If you're using any virtual instruments or samples, they need to be high-quality and current-sounding. Imagine the type of music you might hear in a spa or yoga studio – that's what this Company wants to hear!
TAXI Tip: Pieces with a "drone-like" sound or subtle melodic movement could both work for this request. Just be sure that they are relaxing, meditative, and wouldn't distract from the guided meditation voiceover!
IMPORTANT: Please do NOT include any sound effects in your music such as animal sounds, waterfalls, wind chimes, raindrops, etc.
All submissions should be at least 3 minutes in length and no longer than 7 minutes. Non-faded, buttoned endings will work best. Please do not copy the references in any way, shape, or form. Use them only as a general guide for feel, texture, and tone. Broadcast Quality is needed.


FEEDBACK:

What I like most about this song
I like the guitar parts, the subtlety, the ideas and the overall mix and blend. Nice job with the subtle theme and melodic content. Very musical.

I think you could improve this song by
This is good, but needs more contemporary synth sounds, more variation, more contour and more of a gradual and cohesive build throughout.

I returned or forwarded this song because
This needs a more subtle start, a more gradual build, less repetition, and more competitive synth sounds.


MY TRACK: https://www.taxi.com/members/a9Q_Ye0vSv ... ent-dreams

REFERENCE TRACK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wravuadM2mk
A little funny to me because my 3 tracks were returned for the opposite reasons. They wanted less movement, more repetition with added: "didn't you listen to the examples??"

User avatar
Paulie
Serious Musician
Serious Musician
Posts: 2664
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 8:23 pm
Gender: Male
Location: San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: Do you agree with the screener(416)?

Post by Paulie » Wed Sep 29, 2021 8:02 am

I got two tracks returned for this listing because the screener felt there was too much bass EQ in my mix. I disagree... but that's how it goes sometimes.
Paul "yo paulie!" Croteau
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy." Beethoven
http://www.yopauliemusic.com | https://www.taxi.com/members/paulcroteau | https://youtube.com/@yopauliemusic

User avatar
Casey H
King of the World
King of the World
Posts: 14163
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Re: Do you agree with the screener(416)?

Post by Casey H » Wed Sep 29, 2021 8:10 am

Sometimes it's close, but no cigar. Really nice track and it could easily find a home. :D Not what the screener said, but for this application, I found the guitar a tiny bit harsh and a softer instrument might have worked better. But that's just me, ignoring what the screener said or didn't say. I'm not at all knowledgeable on what synth sounds are current or not.

Keep in mind that this is a sync paying (up to $500) opportunity which means the bar is pretty high. It's always important to keep the bar in mind (not the one you drink at). ;) A library looking for many ambient cues for various TV shows will have a much different bar than a digital content platform shelling out upfront cash.

:D Casey

User avatar
AlanHall
Serious Musician
Serious Musician
Posts: 1148
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:46 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Great Black Swamp, northwest Ohio
Contact:

Re: Do you agree with the screener(416)?

Post by AlanHall » Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:43 pm

DennisPMusic wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 10:42 pm
I got a return from the listing TAXI # S210904AM today.
I submitted 2 tracks, got one returned. I have to say I like your track as well if not better than the one of mine that got forwarded :oops:
My only suspicion is that your sub was too close to the ref track? But why wouldn't the screener say so if that was the case?
Casey H wrote:
Wed Sep 29, 2021 8:10 am
Keep in mind that this is a sync paying (up to $500) opportunity which means the bar is pretty high.
I interpreted that info to mean the opposite of what you sensed. My thought was that it is essentially a WFH; that "up to" means "much less than", esp for a novice composer; and if the videos are youtube streams, then the backend is something like $40 per million streams. Not a reflection on the 'bar', but my prediction of possible income. I'd like to hear more about your familiarity with these kinds of deals, if you'd be so kind.

User avatar
Casey H
King of the World
King of the World
Posts: 14163
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Re: Do you agree with the screener(416)?

Post by Casey H » Wed Sep 29, 2021 6:53 pm

AlanHall wrote:
Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:43 pm
Casey H wrote:
Wed Sep 29, 2021 8:10 am
Keep in mind that this is a sync paying (up to $500) opportunity which means the bar is pretty high.
I interpreted that info to mean the opposite of what you sensed. My thought was that it is essentially a WFH; that "up to" means "much less than", esp for a novice composer; and if the videos are youtube streams, then the backend is something like $40 per million streams. Not a reflection on the 'bar', but my prediction of possible income. I'd like to hear more about your familiarity with these kinds of deals, if you'd be so kind.
I read it as upfront fees being involved with the client paying on the front end for tracks signed. Even if that's $200, *ANY* upfront fee is less and less common these days which raises the bar. Clients don't shell out cash unless they are pretty darn sure the track is very place-able. Contrast this with most libraries who pay nothing upfront to take you tracks into their catalog. (This is assumes I'm interpreting the listing right).

User avatar
AlanHall
Serious Musician
Serious Musician
Posts: 1148
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:46 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Great Black Swamp, northwest Ohio
Contact:

Re: Do you agree with the screener(416)?

Post by AlanHall » Wed Sep 29, 2021 7:09 pm

Casey H wrote:
Wed Sep 29, 2021 6:53 pm
AlanHall wrote:
Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:43 pm
Casey H wrote:
Wed Sep 29, 2021 8:10 am
Keep in mind that this is a sync paying (up to $500) opportunity which means the bar is pretty high.
I interpreted that info to mean the opposite of what you sensed. My thought was that it is essentially a WFH; that "up to" means "much less than", esp for a novice composer; and if the videos are youtube streams, then the backend is something like $40 per million streams. Not a reflection on the 'bar', but my prediction of possible income. I'd like to hear more about your familiarity with these kinds of deals, if you'd be so kind.
I read it as upfront fees being involved with the client paying on the front end for tracks signed. Even if that's $200, *ANY* upfront fee is less and less common these days which raises the bar. Clients don't shell out cash unless they are pretty darn sure the track is very place-able. Contrast this with most libraries who pay nothing upfront to take you tracks into their catalog. (This is assumes I'm interpreting the listing right).
Thanks, Casey.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests