Is it me or # 386?

[larrymagee]

Have any of you guys had TV instrumental submissions rejected because of the mix by screener #386? I've had 31 forwards this year, so I'm doing something right but #386 has rejected about 20 submissions and his only reference in his comments is the mix. At first he rejected cues just because of wide panning. When I brought everything in tight, I still got all the cues rejected. I complained to the head screener about it but nothing changed. I'm wondering if any of you have had this happen to you with this screener. Please let me know. It'll give me more information for my case. He's reviewing most of the things I submit to now and it's discouraging knowing that many of the submissions would have sailed through with another screener.

Here's an example of one that was rejected because of the mix - http://picosong.com/bDKn/ conservatively panned to about 10:30 and 1:30 on a clock face.

[RebekahAnnCurtis]

That accordion is really dominating the mix. There are other instruments that come in the track, but I can barely hear them, the accordion never takes a backseat to let the other instrumentation shine.

[larrymagee]

Thank you. all the problems you hear are because what screener #386 told me to do.

Here's what he said about the prior mix that convinced me to turn up the accordion "Larry, this piece would be perfect but your mix needs work. Bring up your drums and the accordion. Pan your guitars at 10 and 2 instead of 9 and 3 and then bring them down in the mix. The accordion should be the focus. I can't tell from this mix if you have to much room sound on your drums or not. If you do, close mic them and make them more present in the mix."

Here's what he said about the revised mix that you heard "Hi Larry, this is an idea that would work. However the mix needs quite a bit of work. It's got a very live sound to it. I'm hearing a lot of room sound. Getting a more focused drum sound would be a good place to start. Close mic the drums and put them in a small room so you don't get so much room sound. Do the same for the rest of the instruments."

[johnlewitt]

Hey Larry,

Okay that's pretty bizarre.

So this got me to look at my submissions from the past 6 months. Now I don't submit a lot of instrumentals, but I did find one that 386 screened and was actually forwarded (https://soundcloud.com/john-lewitt/oh-darling). All they said was 'Nice job'. So they do put stuff through (I sometimes wonder if there are screeners who don't forward anything!).

I know sometimes that it seems like screeners can be biased against something specific (I once got multiple returns from the same screener about finger noise on the guitar strings) and it can drive you crazy.

Now on this one specifically, played at a louder volume the accordion sounds too loud, but on a second listen with a lower volume it sounds about right. This isn't my specialty but it would seem to me that you want this mix to sound lively, from a room perspective. Maybe I'm wrong, but at least that's what I'd do.

Does any of that help? Probably not!

John

[mojobone]

Hm. The mix mostly works for me, and doesn't sound 'too live' nor anything like it. If anything, it should probably sound a little more live, but with all, er most of the instruments in the same room, but at different distances from the 'listener'. Without referring to the original listing it's hard to tell, but one thing that doesn't work for me is that very phony-sounding sampled saxophone; some mariachis do play sax, but a trumpet or two playing counter-melody would be a better bet, IMO, though really, it should probably be removed rather than replaced.

The real culprit here is the cluttered arrangement, not so much the mix itself; the part that the sax is playing is a good bad example, if you take my meaning. It's not genre-appropriate, and it sticks out like a sore thumb. There's some other stuff in there that I can't quite tell what it is , cuz it's being masked by other parts; strip the mix down and rebuild it, starting with the most important parts (in order of importance) and asking at each step as you add them back , "is this helping or hurting?" and ruthlessly remove anything that's not helping matters. You can start with that sax and its annoyingly unrealistic slur that sounds exactly the same, every time it comes in, a telltale sign that it's copypasted MIDI. Once you have a clear and concise fat-free arrangement with all the parts working together for the greater good, the mix will come together slicker than snake snot.

This is potentially a great track; #386 is right that it needs work, but I think it's more about the arrangement than the mix.

[larrymagee]

thanks john and mojo - great feedback. i really appreciate it.

[joyfrost]

I'm sorry to hear about your run of bad luck with this screener! I just went through and it looks like i've never had anything screened by #386 myself. Thought i might check just in case Sorry i can't help more!

[Joseph]

I've only had one screening from #386. It was a return due to mix issues and I completely agree with him/her.

-Joseph

[ComposerLDG]

I've had both returns and forwards from #386, and I have to be honest, I agree with everything he/she said regarding returns. Basically I've gotten valuable feedback.

[Paulie]

I've had both as well... just got a forward today from #386 for my Fetty Wap Dramedy.