  
|
 |
 |
 |
Moderators: admin, mdc, TAXIstaff
You don't have to, you can be satisfied you have a good track... or you can try to figure out what the screener meant and add that knowledge to your considerable talent... and/or add some 'gloss' to a second version of the track -- up to you of course.
I think this is pretty much the crux. They're asking for tracks that are in the style of and competitive with the reference tracks, which are huge and bright and glossy. You don't want to produce tracks that way. You might be pitching to the wrong listings.Kevm wrote:I wouldn't want a sheen or a gloss on this track or any of my tracks, they aren't meant to be bright.
). 
What have you got to lose?That's fine, I simply don't agree that's sort of why I vented in the first place. The idea that the track could be competitive if I shart it up running it through Ozone is.. again, hard to process for me. My production, the track, etc. is well in the ballpark of the referenced tracks, current Dance Pop, etc..AlpacaRoom wrote:I think this is pretty much the crux. They're asking for tracks that are in the style of and competitive with the reference tracks, which are huge and bright and glossy. You don't want to produce tracks that way. You might be pitching to the wrong listings.Kevm wrote:I wouldn't want a sheen or a gloss on this track or any of my tracks, they aren't meant to be bright.
This isn't about screeners trying to find "something wrong" with your submission. It's them trying to pass only the most relevant stuff along to the listing party. If they're asking for big-room house-influenced pop hits, and your production isn't in that style, the listing party probably won't want to hear it.
Could this track be competitive with the reference tracks for this type of listing? Probably. But you'd have to make it bigger, brighter, and give it a new vocal treatment. If that's absolutely off the table for you, then this probably isn't the right listing to pitch this track to.
I'm not trying to be negative or combative, and really I hope it doesn't come across that way. Returns can be frustrating, but if you're looking for syncs, it probably helps to try to learn something from them. Your production is good, but it doesn't come from the same place and doesn't seem to have the same goals as the reference tracks.
Anyway, that's just, like, my opinion, man. (And everybody's got one.)
-Nick
I don't "have my Taxi goggles on". I questioned myself spending more than 1/2 hour listening to a la's and your song over and over to see if I could help you, as I suspected you might not be willing to listen if I decided the screener had a point. Which I did, after mentioning how obviously talented you are and how good the song is. I notice you don't deny the a la's have a "gloss". You don't want to change your production, that's your choice, but don't shoot the messengers when they point out the difference between what is wanted and what was submittedKevm wrote:That's fine, I simply don't agree that's sort of why I vented in the first place. The idea that the track could be competitive if I shart it up running it through Ozone is.. again, hard to process for me. My production, the track, etc. is well in the ballpark of the referenced tracks, current Dance Pop, etc..AlpacaRoom wrote:I think this is pretty much the crux. They're asking for tracks that are in the style of and competitive with the reference tracks, which are huge and bright and glossy. You don't want to produce tracks that way. You might be pitching to the wrong listings.Kevm wrote:I wouldn't want a sheen or a gloss on this track or any of my tracks, they aren't meant to be bright.
This isn't about screeners trying to find "something wrong" with your submission. It's them trying to pass only the most relevant stuff along to the listing party. If they're asking for big-room house-influenced pop hits, and your production isn't in that style, the listing party probably won't want to hear it.
Could this track be competitive with the reference tracks for this type of listing? Probably. But you'd have to make it bigger, brighter, and give it a new vocal treatment. If that's absolutely off the table for you, then this probably isn't the right listing to pitch this track to.
I'm not trying to be negative or combative, and really I hope it doesn't come across that way. Returns can be frustrating, but if you're looking for syncs, it probably helps to try to learn something from them. Your production is good, but it doesn't come from the same place and doesn't seem to have the same goals as the reference tracks.
Anyway, that's just, like, my opinion, man. (And everybody's got one.)
-Nick
Of course you guys have your Taxi goggles on so I'm coming from a completely different perspective, but echoing his sentiments only makes me facepalm harder. The mix isn't "glossy" enough isn't grounds for a return, it's just drivel.. Oh well.
I probably shouldn't have posted to begin with it was a bad idea I don't know that there's much to come of a discussion on this particular topic
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 129 guests