Help I'm Confused

[Marty]

Thanks you all very much.

I have put up a new mix of "Mudhoggin' " which is actually in stereo. I would appreciate your comments. Am I heading in the right directions? Does this sound more modern?

[admin]

The reason we can't often post instrumentals or cues as examples is that the majority of those are on music library company websites. If we post those:
1) People think the refs are from the company that's running the listing and they just bombard the company with unsolicited submissions, which makes them not want to run any future listings.

2) Even if the refs are NOT from the listing company, but they ARE from a music library, people still bombard that company with music saying, "I found you through TAXI." The libraries get pissed at TAXI, our reputation in the industry gets tarnished, less companies want to work with us, and TAXI gets no listings for our members.

I wish the actions of some folks didn't make it harder for everybody else, but sadly, that's our reality.

Companies also give us requests like, "Find me some Cues that sound like Sia." So, putting out refs like Sia, likely gets you closer to the target in the end anyway.

Hope that helps,
ML

[/quote]

Hi:
Well, I don't want to sound complaining BUT... If I had to do a critique of the TAXI system is that they should make the effort to use instrumental references for instrumental listing requests. Just as simple as that. If they want to have more and better submissions, when asking for instrumentals and cue, the references must be clean and clear. No dialogue upon it (unless they need to illustrate how a background track doesn't interfere with the dialogue) no vocals and so on. If a song with vocals is a source of inspiration for its instrumental parts, then they should point out which are those parts and why.

This is my second year as a TAXI member and I'm still struggling to figure out how to use references with vocals to think of cues and instrumentals.
You know, the common doubts like, is it too much melody or not enough?

Regards!
[/quote]

[Horacemix]

The reason we can't often post instrumentals or cues as examples is that the majority of those are on music library company websites. If we post those:
1) People think the refs are from the company that's running the listing and they just bombard the company with unsolicited submissions, which makes them not want to run any future listings.

2) Even if the refs are NOT from the listing company, but they ARE from a music library, people still bombard that company with music saying, "I found you through TAXI." The libraries get pissed at TAXI, our reputation in the industry gets tarnished, less companies want to work with us, and TAXI gets no listings for our members.

I wish the actions of some folks didn't make it harder for everybody else, but sadly, that's our reality.

Companies also give us requests like, "Find me some Cues that sound like Sia." So, putting out refs like Sia, likely gets you closer to the target in the end anyway.

Hope that helps,
ML

Hi:
Well, I don't want to sound complaining BUT... If I had to do a critique of the TAXI system is that they should make the effort to use instrumental references for instrumental listing requests. Just as simple as that. If they want to have more and better submissions, when asking for instrumentals and cue, the references must be clean and clear. No dialogue upon it (unless they need to illustrate how a background track doesn't interfere with the dialogue) no vocals and so on. If a song with vocals is a source of inspiration for its instrumental parts, then they should point out which are those parts and why.

This is my second year as a TAXI member and I'm still struggling to figure out how to use references with vocals to think of cues and instrumentals.
You know, the common doubts like, is it too much melody or not enough?

Regards!
[/quote]
[/quote]

Hello: thank you for your explanation. I've been naive, thinking everybody acts consciously and respectfully. My concern excluded the other half of the equation, the TAXI business. By the way, I must admit that I forgot that there were a few listings I got that contained links to a dropbox folder with a bunch of instrumental references. So, my critique was wrong from the very begging. I'm sorry about that!

Best Regards!

[gitanosoy]

There seems a discrepancy between the reference material and the body of the listing description as to what is required.

I've seen that many times, too.

For example in some listings you read "cohesive from beginning to end" or things like "vary only slightly" or "gradually changing" etc. - and you'll get a return with "needs a better developmental arc", "could need some more variations", "too repetitive" etc. Another very typical thing is that the screeners are expecting a song structure from a cue and are returning material that is "too repetitive" while the listing and the examples in the listings have no song structure and are repetitive, too. There are many nonsensical, illogical requirements, too. For example when your get a return that mentions that your cue needs a bigger ending, which makes absolutely no sense for cues. As tv producers are using a few seconds of cues, it simply does not matter whether that cue has a big ending or not. It can still be the perfect cue for a scene, yet it won't ever be forwarded to a music library due to the "extra" requirement which is never mentioned in a listing.

Anyway, all this arguing does not help and is a waste of time. There is only one solution to pass the screener-filter: Deliver what they think is right. It is of no interest whether that is really right, it is only important to adapt to their requirements and ears. Screeners and producers have a certain set of mind, trained by what's been mainstream opinion, and that is exactly what you need to deliver. Some Taxi members have figured that out and pass the filter easily, some like me have not yet figured it out, but with every new critique I at least have the opportunity to adapt to what they want to hear, and that is more than one can ask for.

Yes, I agree about the comment on"too repetitive" as often I hear the reference track have no arc and is repetitive so yeah it can be confusing at times.

[JohnnyP]

Hi Marty,
I listened to Mudhoggin' and being a bass player ( I played bass for 10 years with top country artists) my first thought was this- The drums are really, really, really syncopated. If I was playing with that drummer we'd have words! I believe part of what the screener meant about the groove not being right is that you're breaking up the groove too much.
I would try just doing a straight kick, snare and hat and then play your guitar etc along with that. It might assist in helping you to tighten up your playing coz you wouldn't be worrying about the accents coming up. And more importantly it would establish a solid groove. Then maybe throw some drum fills in after the fact. For country music, especially instrumentals the first thing is the groove. Best, John

[superkons]

There seems a discrepancy between the reference material and the body of the listing description as to what is required.

I've seen that many times, too.

For example in some listings you read "cohesive from beginning to end" or things like "vary only slightly" or "gradually changing" etc. - and you'll get a return with "needs a better developmental arc", "could need some more variations", "too repetitive" etc. Another very typical thing is that the screeners are expecting a song structure from a cue and are returning material that is "too repetitive" while the listing and the examples in the listings have no song structure and are repetitive, too. There are many nonsensical, illogical requirements, too. For example when your get a return that mentions that your cue needs a bigger ending, which makes absolutely no sense for cues. As tv producers are using a few seconds of cues, it simply does not matter whether that cue has a big ending or not. It can still be the perfect cue for a scene, yet it won't ever be forwarded to a music library due to the "extra" requirement which is never mentioned in a listing.

Anyway, all this arguing does not help and is a waste of time. There is only one solution to pass the screener-filter: Deliver what they think is right. It is of no interest whether that is really right, it is only important to adapt to their requirements and ears. Screeners and producers have a certain set of mind, trained by what's been mainstream opinion, and that is exactly what you need to deliver. Some Taxi members have figured that out and pass the filter easily, some like me have not yet figured it out, but with every new critique I at least have the opportunity to adapt to what they want to hear, and that is more than one can ask for.

Endings do matter, as they are very often used to underscore the end of a scene. Sure, music editors may use the ending from an alt mix which is only bass&drums, but you still need to sell your music, therefore a bigger ending makes your cue more palatable and useful

[lgstarr]

From what I remember (and I've been in the music business since 1955) people could demo a song on piano or guitar (live or recorded) and there were people "with ears" who knew whether or not it was a good song. And so a songwriter who wasn't intending to be an artist could get placements. (I myself once sat in the offices of April-Blackwood singing and playing a few songs on the upright piano--and, even though I've done three AFTRA shows, I really can't sing, which is why I didn't spend the money to join AFTRA.)

I still cannot get over the fact (and never will) that a songwriter is supposed to be really good at (1) writing a song (2) recording a song--with a band and with a professional mix and (3) mastering a song!!! I used to work with mastering studios in Los Angeles all the time when I worked at MCA Records and those guys weren't also expert songwriters and performers, etc!! But we're supposed to be experts in ALL those areas? Then why do we need anyone else?? It used to be that it was possible to do it all EXCEPT for distribution and that isn't even true anymore with streaming.


--Linda

[JohnnyP]

From what I remember (and I've been in the music business since 1955) people could demo a song on piano or guitar (live or recorded) and there were people "with ears" who knew whether or not it was a good song. And so a songwriter who wasn't intending to be an artist could get placements. (I myself once sat in the offices of April-Blackwood singing and playing a few songs on the upright piano--and, even though I've done three AFTRA shows, I really can't sing, which is why I didn't spend the money to join AFTRA.)

I still cannot get over the fact (and never will) that a songwriter is supposed to be really good at (1) writing a song (2) recording a song--with a band and with a professional mix and (3) mastering a song!!! I used to work with mastering studios in Los Angeles all the time when I worked at MCA Records and those guys weren't also expert songwriters and performers, etc!! But we're supposed to be experts in ALL those areas? Then why do we need anyone else?? It used to be that it was possible to do it all EXCEPT for distribution and that isn't even true anymore with streaming.


--Linda

Yep. Get what you’re saying Linda.

In Nashville in the 90’s I could go into a publisher and play a gtr/vocal and many could “hear” the song. It’s like when you bring a gtr/vocal into a studio and the session players can hear what they’re supposed to play.
Now with technology there are so many young, extremely talented artists that can do it all- plus do their own indie distributing through social media platforms! Honestly my hat is off to them for wanting it so bad they do all that work.
I had to teach myself how to use Logic in 2017 and I’m just getting half decent at it.
I hire all my vocalists and I still have someone else do a final mix and master all my stuff.
But in my opinion if a songwriter can play one instrument well, and has the desire- that person can learn the technology enough to produce broadcast quality songs. Just my 2 cents. Best, John

[lgstarr]

Yep. Get what you’re saying Linda.

In Nashville in the 90’s I could go into a publisher and play a gtr/vocal and many could “hear” the song. It’s like when you bring a gtr/vocal into a studio and the session players can hear what they’re supposed to play.

Now with technology there are so many young, extremely talented artists that can do it all- plus do their own indie distributing through social media platforms! Honestly my hat is off to them for wanting it so bad they do all that work.

I had to teach myself how to use Logic in 2017 and I’m just getting half decent at it.

I hire all my vocalists and I still have someone else do a final mix and master all my stuff.

But in my opinion if a songwriter can play one instrument well, and has the desire- that person can learn the technology enough to produce broadcast quality songs. Just my 2 cents. Best, John

Meant to say I've been in the music business since 1965 (not 1955). Anyway, I did get really good using Studio Vision--Thomas Newman told my husand and I that he used it all he time and loved it back then--and have a slew of good cues I could use if my husband hadn't lost the source files in our big move from CA to AZ 6 years ago! (There wasn't any need to create master quality demos then either because the artists had their own people that did all the arranging and producing.)

In the very beginning of my career when I first joined the musicians union in Honolulu, I would walk into a room and just sit down at the piano (that was great). Later, when I had to get all the gear, it was really hard to transport all the stuff around Los Angeles to gigs being a girl (and once my Fender-Rhodes got lost on the way to the New York State Fair--so Engelbert Humperkinck's keyboard player let me use his stuff). And I remember thinking that I just wanted to play music, I didn't want to become a scientist (I'd been looking at all the technical stuff about synthesizers).

So yes, kudos to all the young wizards out there and good luck with all the technical stuff and being to afford it all too!

[cosmicdolphin]

For example in some listings you read "cohesive from beginning to end" or things like "vary only slightly" or "gradually changing" etc. - and you'll get a return with "needs a better developmental arc", "could need some more variations", "too repetitive" etc.

I would say generally you need to be changing things around every 4 bars ( in 4/4 ) and if there's no change in 8 bars you are probably in " treadmill " territory...where the listener feels like they are on an endless treadmill going in a loop.

The thing is if they want to loop a section for a show then they can just loop it themselves in their own edit bay. So what they really want is options.

For example when you get a return that mentions that your cue needs a bigger ending, which makes absolutely no sense for cues. As tv producers are using a few seconds of cues, it simply does not matter whether that cue has a big ending or not.

Well it does matter quite a bit. When they edit your cue into a scene they need a way for it to transition into the next one. So if you have a decent build towards a definitive ending your cue can be much more useful to the editor. They often use that last build to signify to the viewer that one scene is ending and another is coming, especially in reality shows.

Sometimes they will just use the middle of the cue and then tack the ending bit on themselves when they need to get out of cue into the next scene.

A lot of reference tracks are just for the "vibe"...obviously songs can have a fairly repetitive backing track as they have a vocal on top to hold the listeners interest. So if you are building a cue from a reference song by an artist don't think that just because they've got 16 bars where nothing much changes that it's okay to do the same.

Take the feel/vibe..but make something that has that arc and a strong finish. Obviously this is not true of every style but a good rule of thumb especially for reality cues that are using reference tracks from Top 40 type songs.

Mark