Instrumental Cues Confusion

[kalliergo]

I am hoping someone can clarify this question for me. I submit mostly instrumental cues. I have had a lot of forwards recently, but have had some returns that I am unclear about.

The listing instructions for these opps include directions for a "singular motif" to build the cue around rather than traditional A/B sections. Feedback from previous submissions also includes the requirement to "build the track" from start to finish, with additional layers, textures, fx etc.

I have followed these instructions and usually introduce a singular rhythmic or melodic motif that repeats throughout the track to the end. I also build the track with new layers, orchestration and other counter riffs.

As I stated, I have had multiple forwards with this strategy, however I have had several tracks returned because they were "too repetitive."

However, when I listen to my tracks that have been forwarded and they seem as repetitive as the ones returned. I can't tell a major difference structurally.

I have also had several tracks submitted to multiple opps where one is returned and another reviewer forwards it on.

Can some clarify this issue? Or is it just a subjective call on the part of the reviewer?

Thanks.

[Skylarvj]

I run into the same problem. One instrumental they say is too repetitive and the next they say needs to stick to a singular motif. It's been frustrating sometimes finding the balance. A lot of it depends on the listing. Maybe go back and read through the listings where the piece got forwarded and then compare them to the ones where it got rejected. You might find the small differences in the details of the listing that give you your answer.

Any time a melody repeats in my composition I always ask myself, "did I present this melody in a way that makes me want to listen to it again?". If the answer is no, then I find ways to change it. The change needs to be just big enough to where the audience knows it's different and/or makes the track feel like it's developing. That could be by changing the instrumentation, adding simple counter melodies, changing the background texture, present the melody in a call and response fashion. It's also a good idea to have a clear B section in most if not all of your instrumentals.

Anyway, those are simple composition tricks I remind myself of when I get a return due to a lack of development or too much repetition (even if the track got forwarded in anther listing). Hope this helps in some way.

Cheers,
Skylar van Joolen

[kalliergo]

Skylarvj, Very helpful. Thanks very much! I have been submitting mostly instrumental cues. Sounds as if I would have more latitude in the arrangement if I submitted instrumentals instead?

[cosmicdolphin]

Any time a melody repeats in my composition I always ask myself, "did I present this melody in a way that makes me want to listen to it again?". If the answer is no, then I find ways to change it. The change needs to be just big enough to where the audience knows it's different and/or makes the track feel like it's developing. That could be by changing the instrumentation, adding simple counter melodies, changing the background texture, present the melody in a call and response fashion. It's also a good idea to have a clear B section in most if not all of your instrumentals.

This is all good advice although I would argue that you don't always need a B section, A-A-A-A cues can bee easier for editors to work with as they just build without changing direction so if you can incorporate the other techniques you mentioned that's often enough if done well.

Most placements won't use the whole piece , they'll often chop out 20-30 seconds of the best bit then go to the sting ending. I've found the longer placements I've had i.e. around the 1 minute mark are because I stuck with A-A-A-A and the because the cue built it was able to stay in the scene as it progressed.

There was a thread about avoiding repetition the other day ;

topic146048.html