Not Broadcast Quality..........?

[southpaw]

I just got a dissappointing return and while i knew that this one was a long shot... well, it still stinks.I was a bit shocked to see that the reasons why these were not forwarded is because they are apparently, not "BROADCAST QUALITY" according to Listener ID # 299.Are these songs BQ or not..? "To Be A Better Man" + "In R.E.M."http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default ... =musicSure, there are some minor mix issues i can hear...But nothing severe. I dont think they could be considered not BQ though....Funny thing is, not to tute my own horn, but ive done blind tests comparing chart hits and my songs 'production wise', and people have actually said they thought the song 'they later found out was mine', sounded most professional/clear/clean..To the screeners.... Or "listener ID #299: What kind of headphones are you listening with?

[davewalton]

Mar 25, 2009, 3:29pm, southpaw wrote:I just got a dissappointing return and while i knew that this one was a long shot... well, it still stinks.I was a bit shocked to see that the reasons why these were not forwarded is because they are apparently, not "BROADCAST QUALITY" according to Listener ID # 299.Are these songs BQ or not..? "To Be A Better Man" + "In R.E.M."http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default ... =musicSure, there are some minor mix issues i can hear...But nothing severe. I dont think they could be considered not BQ though....Funny thing is, not to tute my own horn, but ive done blind tests comparing chart hits and my songs 'production wise', and people have actually said they thought the song 'they later found out was mine', sounded most professional/clear/clean..To the screeners.... Or "listener ID #299: What kind of headphones are you listening with?First about the headphones... they listen to all the music with the same headphones. (i.e. Not "good" headphones for everyone else and "bad" headphones for you). My guess would be that you didn't get a forward for the reasons that you felt that it was a "long-shot". Clearly the quality is there but your own expectations of a likely return makes me think that it might not have been targeted well and the screener just checked the wrong box.BTW... if you step back a little bit from this it's a little funny. I've had listings where I was pretty sure I wasn't hitting the target but when it was returned for a reason *other* than the reason I already knew kept it from being forwarded... I felt cheated or something. We're such a sensitive bunch. Of the two, the R.E.M track was my favorite... very nice.From one lefty to another...Dave

[billg]

I'm with Dave & bet the wrong box was checked 'cause these sound good.

[partyofone]

Wow hadn't heard In REM yet.. very cool.. yeah I agree... broadcast quality these ARE. Must've been something else! Nice songs and production! Great mix.

[djb]

I sure hope there was some mistake here because if these aren't broadcast quality my stuff doesn't come close. Keep us posted on this. The songs sound great. Dave

[sgs4u]

Mar 25, 2009, 3:29pm, southpaw wrote:....these were not forwarded is because they are apparently, not "BROADCAST QUALITY" Sure, there are some minor mix issues i can hear...But nothing severe. Yeesh man. I listened. They sound really pretty, and even better with headphones. But sometimes a beautiful stereo spread in headphones can be distracting from the other things that still need work. You mentioned minor mix issues... like the bass stops playing or drops out, or isn't finished? I don't get it, you say the mix has minor issues and you were hoping that the songs would be forwarded? I can't see them forwarding anything with "issues." Why would they forward something that isn't finished (in their opinion and yours)? That's just the truth the way I hear it. Neither song actually sounds completely finished to me. And you haven't posted the listings requirements, That is the most important set of conditions to measure your tracks against. When you send in mixes that you admit have minor mix issues, do you think the screeners are going to hear those, or miss them? My guess is that they'd hear them quite esily. That is their job! Worrying about what headphones screeners use is a waste of your time. It's casting suspicion on their equipment. It's your job to make sure your tunes sound good on any level of quality speaker. But they are very close, and with a little extra TLC, you'll polish them up and they'll be perfect for something. They are really good, just not ALL THE WAY GREAT yet. Best of luck man, 'cause it's obvious you know what you're doing. And you're a Logic guy. Sure hope you get what I'm talking about. Your tunes are awesome, but not finished. and we don't know what listing you sent them into. So it's very hard to be completely objective with suggestions.

[ciskokidd]

I think Steve makes some good points.What I have come to understand from talks with Matto and just plain trial and error is that Broadcast Quality does not necessarly mean the quality of your recording from a sonic perspective.It may mean a variety of things and there is a very good thread posted by H.A.L. that gives a better understanding to some of these issues that screeners use to determine BQ.I don't recall which thread it was and am really too lazy right now to go and look for it, but it's worth the read.I think that your answer may be there, cuz it ain't really the quality of your recording IMO.Best,Cisko

[hummingbird]

http://taxi.proboards27.com/index.cgi?b ... 12589H.A.L.

[simonparker]

these are broadcast quality. Unless BQ means that they can't broadcast ur material because of foul language (lol).... Screener prob had other reasons not to forward and might have checked wrong box. I think if you were spot on with the pitch you'd have a case, but since u feel you weren't right for the listing to begin with it's prob nothing to worry about....love the voice by the way....

[jonathanm]

Wow, dude. Great production skills. They checked the wrong box. Give 'em a call or an email. They'll let you know. They're good about that.