Plagiarized track still isn't modern enough

[todddunnigan]

We got a return recently where we all but plagiarized the example track, at least that's the way it sounded to us. It was as close to plagiarism as we were comfortable with. We even used the same lyrics for our hook, but we got the usual feedback "needs a Modern Mix", what ever THAT is.

OK. so who can tell me definitively what makes one of these a "Modern Mix", and one of them "not modern enough"

Track 1: https://youtu.be/IbMMce4QwT8

Track 2: https://www.taxi.com/members/hvEsmMqtRQ ... won-t-stay

[Casey H]

Was that the only reason for return? What else did the screener say on the review?

[Telefunkin]

'Not modern enough' is pretty vague feedback and not particularly helpful (if that's all you got). Its hard to tell what someone else is hearing based on that, but I can tell you what I hear. IMHO Track 1 sounds clean, controlled, balanced, uncluttered, has sheen, is interesting and totally professional. Track 2 sounds like Track 1 has been mimicked (too closely) along with many of its elements but not necessarily its mix. The bass is a lot less clean and separated, the vocals are less smooth and controlled (e.g. they jump out at 2:26), the stereo and ambience are not as interesting so it doesn't demand attention in the same way, and it lacks the sheen of the other mix. Although the overall result is very good, it comes across more like a very good demo. Just my thoughts though, and BTW I'd have made the same comments about Track 2 even without hearing Track 1

As you have a very close reference, putting the two mixes side by side in a DAW and switching between them should make the differences more apparent (although admittedly more in some places than others), and might also suggest some moves to close the gap, perhaps starting with the bass and the vocals.

Honestly, I think Track 2's mix is pretty good, but there is a difference, and that last 10% is where the money is. Anyway, I'd be more worried about the lawsuit than the mix .

[Casey H]

Todd
I listened to this and some of your other tracks. Really nice stuff!

Assuming the screener had no other reasons for the return (Please post the whole review), this might be one where you should contact headscreener AT taxi dot com and ask for clarification.

I don't have the listing text so I don't know how high the bar was which can be a factor.

Best,
Casey

[cosmicdolphin]

Completely different production to my ears. The laundry list of why's are too many and various but broadly your track is not very expertly mixed IMHO and theirs is.

The ref track is very tight , controlled and smooth whereas yours sounds ' a bit all over the place ' ..frequencies poke out of everywhere that are not needed and cluttering the mix. Choice of FX comes across dated and even the levels of the various insutrments are not right for me.

As an example if we just focus on the intro guitar for both tracks:-

Theirs - hyper compressed ( used as a deliberate effect ) - you can tell by the way it's pushing certain things down and bringing others up. It might even be our old friend the OTT plugin. But it feels small and enclosed and kinda lo-fi, there's not much extended frequency range, it all sounds quite focused into a small area.

Yours - Obviously it's an electric instead of acoustic guitar but this sounds much fuller and with more dynamics, it's not very tightly focused like the ref track , there's no cool pumping effect that gives the ref track guitar it's aesthetic. There's also a noticable difference in the picking style. The ref track sounds like finger style picking which gives it a different feel and you get more of a percussive type effect.

So for me , even in the first couple of bars it sounds quite different and that's just the first thing I heard..there are loads of other things like the vocal delivery style and production , bass , drums that all sound like they are mixed in a more dated fashion but I can't sit here all night so the best thing is to go through the ref track with a fine tooth comb track by track noting down what you hear and then pulling it into your DAW and A/Bing the shit out of it one small section at a time until it's sounding more similar.

The good news is you can absoloutely blatantly steal all their production ideas without getting into any trouble.

Mark

[Casey H]

It may very well be that the production didn't mean the bar for the listing. However, I don't think we should overdo the comparisons with a commercially released track as the production on those is generally is top notch. It would be better to listen to the submitted track to itself and look at how the production is as far as BQ, modern, etc.

[cosmicdolphin]

I don't think we should overdo the comparisons with a commercially released track as the production on those is generally is top notch.

Completely disagree. That's what the libraries are listening to.

[Casey H]

I don't think we should overdo the comparisons with a commercially released track as the production on those is generally is top notch.

Completely disagree. That's what the libraries are listening to.

I meant not take it to the extreme, didn't mean it as ignore. Hence not "overdo". I could be wrong, just ask my wife.

[cosmicdolphin]

I meant not take it to the extreme, didn't mean it as ignore. Hence not "overdo". I could be wrong, just ask my wife.

Taking it to the extreme is exactly what I think some folks should be attempting with their production, because generally if they're getting returns for dated mixes it means they haven't listened , absorbed or reverse engineered any of the reference mixes properly. I wouldn't call being forensic about this stuff it going to the extreme , this is just standard practice IMHO.

I would even go as far as remaking a small portion of a ref track as closely as you possibly can in your own DAW because it forces you to figure out why it sounds like it does , and you can then carry what you've learned during that process over to your own track and it will likely sound a lot more on target.

[todddunnigan]

Todd
I listened to this and some of your other tracks. Really nice stuff!

Assuming the screener had no other reasons for the return (Please post the whole review), this might be one where you should contact headscreener AT taxi dot com and ask for clarification.

I don't have the listing text so I don't know how high the bar was which can be a factor.

Best,
Casey

Here's the whole review
Liked most:
Great Chorus Melody

Could improve:
This chorus melody is strong, it's just the performance and execution that needs a bit more work. You might want to stack this hook with some more parts and try to have this remixed. A slick mix is where it's at!

Returned Because:

I sent this song back because it's missing the Modern Mix this client is looking for.

Thanks for the feedback