TAXI.com

Feedback please and thank you!

Latest version (playing around with Graham's feedback #2: Thinking Too Much V4

New version (attempting to incorporate Alan's feedback): Thinking Too Much V3

New version (based on Graham's feedback): Thinking Too Much V2

old version: Thinking 2 Much V1

CONTEMPLATIVE HYBRID UNDERSCORE INSTRUMENTAL CUES are needed by a very successful boutique Music Library that's distributed by Universal and has tons of credits in Big Films, Countless TV Shows, and Commercials!

This is a catalog you want to be in! Please listen to the following examples the Library's CEO gave us to get yourself in the ballpark of what they need:

Instrumental Examples
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/35sc6p87 ... 2&e=2&dl=0

Quoting the Company's CEO: "We're looking for intimate ambient underscores that gradually evolve as they progress. Your pieces should use organic sounds (such as felt pianos) on top of the ambient bed. and starting out on the 'smaller' side and evolving it into something bigger as it moves forward."

ADVICE DIRECTLY FROM the COMPANY's CEO: "Many composers throw in way too many ideas, and are not focused on ONE CENTRAL MOTIF: they try to keep things interesting by adding new harmonic lines and elements (melodies, even improvisations, etc) instead of focusing on the production and textures. What I'm looking for is basically: obvious production music (in form and structure), that sounds like commercial music (production style)." Put simply, keep it SIMPLE! We know that other Libraries like to receive music with complementary A and B sections, but this Library is NOT one of them – stick with ONE CENTRAL MOTIF per submission, please!

Please submit well-crafted Underscore Instrumental Cues with a contemplative and reflective tone! Your submissions should have one clear central motif that gradually builds to create a sense of forward motion and interest. Instrumentation that blends organic and electronic Hybrid elements (guitar, synth pads, keys, light percussion, etc.), and is in the general stylistic ballpark of the references will work best. Please be sure that any virtual instrumentation you use is high-quality and realistic sounding.

All submissions should be about 2 minutes long, give or take. Good edit points and non-faded, buttoned/stinger endings are required. Do NOT copy the references in any way, shape, or form. Use them only as a general guide for tempo, tone, texture, and overall vibe. Broadcast Quality is needed.

NOTE: This company has a strong preference for composers who understand music licensing companies and how typical music library deals are structured. If that's not you, they politely ask that you don't submit to this request.

This Music Library offers an EXCLUSIVE deal with a cool twist. You'll keep 50% of all gross income generated by your music, plus you'll get 100% of the Writer's share income generated by your PRO. In other words, if the company licenses your music under a blanket deal, you'll get income. If they license it for a YouTube video, you'll get income. Not all music libraries pay you for things like that! The Publisher will get 100% of the Publisher's share.

Because this is an Exclusive deal, the music you submit for this pitch cannot already be signed with other Libraries or Publishers. You must own or control 100% of your Masters and Copyright. Please send as many Instrumental Cues as you'd like, online or per CD. All submissions will be screened and critiqued by TAXI. Submissions must be received no later than 11:59 PM (PST) on Monday, March 4th, 2024. TAXI # S240304HY

Thank you, Graham! Very much appreciate the listen. New version in first post in the thread.

===
Michael & Sharon

Hi Michael and Sharon!
I like the sounds that you have, Good work!

Comparing your track to ref #1 (the obvious inspiration) it sounds to me like your balance is upside-down.
In the ref track, the repeated plucked guitar note is very quiet compared to 0dB. Everything builds upon it until the note is hardly distinguishable from the hand percussion, i.e., just another rhythmic element. Compare the amplitude profile of your track against the ref track. In your track, the repeated note is loud and impossible to get away from. By the time you've built to act 3, the track is no louder than it was at the start. In contrast to that, the ref track has a clear 'developmental arc' through 3 sections of increasing amplitude. My feedback, offered for your consideration, is to re-balance the mix keeping the overall shape of the track in mind. JM2C

Alan -Thank you for the listen and the feedback. New version in first post blends the picked guitar better with other elements in the second act.

As a bonus, below, waveforms of the ref and ours. The ref varies dynamically a lot from act to act, but we thought that for sync, more consistency than that is generally a good thing? So use the ref as "a general guide for tempo, tone, texture, and overall vibe" - but not necessarily for loudness? We've seen other forum posts that we interpreted as saying "just make sure it's loud enough without the waveform becoming a stick of butter".

irthlingz wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 18, 2024 5:53 pm

We've seen other forum posts that we interpreted as saying "just make sure it's loud enough without the waveform becoming a stick of butter".

It's completely genre-dependent. I'm making a criminal oversimplification by saying this, but for most pop and rock styles, the loudness does not vary by much. Maybe a breakdown here or there, and for the sync editor, an amplitude profile (not the dreaded 'stick of butter') that reveals the edit points is a must. For jazz combo or orchestral or similar, to be true to the genre it is expected to have phrases and other dynamic motion to emphasize the arc and direction of the piece.

Your waveform is great. I just think this listing is looking for loud and soft, so I suggested a re-balance of the mix.

These listing that have dropbox files are pure gold as far as being able to peer into the world of the library. A thought I had - not verified by any means - is that the example files are actual tracks in the library collection, or at the very least, mock-ups by a staff composer to demonstrate the library's desired material. To a point, these examples are much closer to what they want from us than any other track that could be provided. The goal I have for myself is to absorb all of it, and incorporate it into my submissions. Does that work for me? ... too soon to tell

Thanks again, Alan. Based on that, we should vary the dynamics a lot more. All four refs:

Thank you, Graham. We'll play with all this and see what we come up with. Worst case, we learn something!

edit: New version (V4) now in first post.

Sounds like a nice track but I'm not qualified to offer feedback on the mix, etc. I see some great helpful feedback by others which is why I love this forum.

As far as the listing, you probably know the drill by now, this is a very high bar listing. When you see" Music Library that's distributed by Universal", you know that's the case. So lots of good tracks won't get the forward. But the important thing is you're developing and improving your skills and sometimes tracks that won't get into high bar libraries can get into more medium-bar ones (nothing wrong with that). If you do end up with a forward, drinks for you guys are on me (OK, virtual drinks, but still )

Good luck!
Casey

Thanks for the encouragement, Casey!