Need help in understanding a listing return.

[JohnV]

HI All,

I've been a Taxi member for a couple years now and had more forwards than returns and some success. When I do get returned, I usually can see the reviewers point and use the critique constructively in the spirit it was intended.

This one, however, has got me baffled, I would love your thoughts.

The listing was...."ORIGINAL SURF ROCK INSTRUMENTALS are needed for a several $4,500, NON-Exclusive, Direct-to-Music Supervisor placements in an Action Adventure Fantasy TV Series. This Music Supervisor needs Guitar-Driven, Mid-to-Up-Tempo Instrumentals that would fit on a playlist with these references, which the Music Supervisor gave us:

“Miserlou” by Dick Dale

“Wipe Out” by Surfaris

“Pipeline” by The Chantays"

What is submitted was
https://soundcloud.com/john-vanhoudt/grab-yer-board

The return was "Stylistically Off Target" and "This piece feels too repetitious for this project. The composition needed more changes to add complexity and dynamics to the track overall."

I'm curious of your thoughts

Thank you so much

John Van Houdt

[ChrisW]

HI John

Well it's a great track and solid production - of course!

Look I'm no expert in this genre but the drums and perhaps the guitar at times sounded a tad modern to my ear. I wondered if the drums could be lower in the mix and the kit sounded kinda contemporary I think, that's what struck me. And perhaps what's leading to the 'repetitive' comment is the melody you're playing and I did feel some parts are repeated once too often. Maybe...

Just checked out your Soundcloud profile - not sure it should be me giving you advice John!!!

Just a few thoughts.

Regards
Chris

[JohnV]

Thank you Chris for the kind words.

Upon reflection and listening to the other forwards, I realized at the beginning, I should have not repeated the "A" section and gone right into the "B" section. I made that edit just now and I am amazed on how much more the track popped.

Onward and upward!

[andygabrys]

Thank you Chris for the kind words.

Upon reflection and listening to the other forwards, I realized at the beginning, I should have not repeated the "A" section and gone right into the "B" section. I made that edit just now and I am amazed on how much more the track popped.

Onward and upward!

if you went to the B section at 0:34 and used the couple bars of fills at 0:34-0:38 as a little breath later in the song that's definitely what felt right.

Remember to escape the "repetitive" feeling you can build things as well.

Like first time A - guitar lower octave no organ. Or use a lower less active organ part.
Second time A at 0:16 - guitar higher octave adding the organ.

then still hit the B section and all of a sudden things really move.

Worth trying a few different approaches.

[eeoo]

Yeah i think if you went to the B section at 0:38 and then returned to a modified A section it would work better as a cue. Maybe get it down toward the 2:00 minute mark. For a cue i would probably not even use that C section. That said i think it's a cool tune, nicely done!

[JohnV]

Thanks All,



JV

[Kolstad]

You certainly can pitch this with confidence, sounds killer!
The rakes sounds quite modern, especially with the compressed gtr, but also very cool for this genre.. probably more nu-surf than original, though.
Maybe the soupe had a specific use in mind, and she/he just couldn't envision this there.