Page 1 of 3
Disheartening
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:27 pm
by hummingbird
A while ago I wrote this
topic146426.html thanking 432 for a Return (way off target) that pointed me in the right direction, submitting to a listing (reality tv, like 432 suggested) for which 396 Forwarded me - with a note that it might be too creative for 'a conservative editor but could definitely work in those scenarios'. I was delighted, learned something from the two screeners, good stuff.
I submitted this same track for one of the RR instrumental cue listings and 416 Returned it saying as being "not contemporary enough for the listing" (no mention of 'contemporary' anywhere in the listing but, umm ok...) and then, the knife in the heart: "a music library probably wouldn't be able to include this in their catalog because they need
more contemporary sounds, more developmental arc, and more overall commercial viability." Ouch.
Now I understand that there are different opinions - we even see that on panels at the Rally. But it's disheartening to think the production was good enough to be considered 'creative & innovative' and deserving of a Forward when the next screener basically Returns it because, like, well... the sounds are dated and it's not commercially viable.
I think I have to go back and re-watch Steven Memel's 'Rejecting Rejection.....' for the third time.
Re: Disheartening
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2020 1:15 am
by Robertj64
hummingbird wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:27 pm
A while ago I wrote this
topic146426.html thanking 432 for a Return (way off target) that pointed me in the right direction, submitting to a listing (reality tv, like 432 suggested) for which 396 Forwarded me - with a note that it might be too creative for 'a conservative editor but could definitely work in those scenarios'. I was delighted, learned something from the two screeners, good stuff.
I submitted this same track for one of the RR instrumental cue listings and 416 Returned it saying as being "not contemporary enough for the listing" (no mention of 'contemporary' anywhere in the listing but, umm ok...) and then, the knife in the heart: "a music library probably wouldn't be able to include this in their catalog because they need
more contemporary sounds, more developmental arc, and more overall commercial viability." Ouch.
Now I understand that there are different opinions - we even see that on panels at the Rally. But it's disheartening to think the production was good enough to be considered 'creative & innovative' and deserving of a Forward when the next screener basically Returns it because, like, well... the sounds are dated and it's not commercially viable.
I think I have to go back and re-watch Steven Memel's 'Rejecting Rejection.....' for the third time.
I don't think you need to go back and read anything. It sounds like the screeners are using canned responses in order to mass-reject songs. The wording is so close to my critiques and those of another on here. This has been going on for some time now and not just with one screener. I have several critiques I received where "not contemporary enough" or "samples are of inferior quality" is used. There is a pattern emerging here and it doesn't look good.
Re: Disheartening
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2020 1:27 am
by Kolstad
Dont get stuck in that one track, Vikki, and don’t let others tell you who to be. Be MORE you, not less. Uniqueness is a good thing in library music as libraries are flooded with tracks that sounds the same.
Re: Disheartening
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2020 1:54 am
by cosmicdolphin
I'm afraid I agree more with the latest screening than the initial ones and if I compare it with other signed Library tracks in similar genres then it just doesn't get over the quality bar sonically or musically for me.
I'm definitely getting a dated feel from some of the sounds, one of the early loops sounds like it has pitched elements that are out of key with the rest of the track.
Also the whole thing sounds more like a procession of loops, so although it changes over time it doesn't really flow or seem to build upon an idea. It's just a conveyor belt of "stuff" that then gets replaced by more "stuff" so I totally get the developmental arc comments.
The quality bar certainly seems higher than it was 5yrs ago as well. I'm not sure some of my old tracks would be forwarded now. There's a constant drive to improve in order to get music signed and placed.
Mark
Re: Disheartening
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2020 6:28 am
by Robertj64
cosmicdolphin wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 1:54 am
I'm afraid I agree more with the latest screening than the initial ones and if I compare it with other signed Library tracks in similar genres then it just doesn't get over the quality bar sonically or musically for me.
I'm definitely getting a dated feel from some of the sounds, one of the early loops sounds like it has pitched elements that are out of key with the rest of the track.
Also the whole thing sounds more like a procession of loops, so although it changes over time it doesn't really flow or seem to build upon an idea. It's just a conveyor belt of "stuff" that then gets replaced by more "stuff" so I totally get the developmental arc comments.
The quality bar certainly seems higher than it was 5yrs ago as well. I'm not sure some of my old tracks would be forwarded now. There's a constant drive to improve in order to get music signed and placed.
Mark
Mark, did you watch any of the panelists from the Road Rally? If you did, you would notice that the bulk of the songs presented were NOT contemporary and yet they got forwarded. They were mostly country or folk. If there was anything dance oriented, it was retro. So if we apply your thinking then none of those songs that the panel heard should have been accepted yet they did ask for the songs to be forwarded to them. If the screeners had watched the panelists, they too would not be applying their own standards of "contemporary" and rejecting the tracks. Do you see the problem here?
Re: Disheartening
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:40 am
by cosmicdolphin
Robertj64 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 6:28 am
Mark, did you watch any of the panelists from the Road Rally?
Only a couple that include panelists who's Libs I have music in. To be honest I watched a lot of it at 1.25x speed
Robertj64 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 6:28 am
If you did, you would notice that the bulk of the songs presented were NOT contemporary and yet they got forwarded.
Pretty sure that's just a reflection of the submissions received - I didn't read the RR Listing so I have no idea what the criteria was ? Did it say " must be contemporary" or was it wide open ? Were't they just picked at random from the forwards ?
Robertj64 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 6:28 am
So if we apply your thinking then none of those songs that the panel heard should have been accepted yet they did ask for the songs to be forwarded to them. If the screeners had watched the panelists, they too would not be applying their own standards of "contemporary" and rejecting the tracks. Do you see the problem here?
There were a couple of decent songs I heard them ask for copies of, but those weren't dated sounding songs. They didn't have below broadcast quality production , and they didn't have sub-par vocals ( except one )
One or two asked for details of songs I wouldn't have chosen - The ones I would have picked
everybody picked. There's also no guarantee of those songs ending up being signed to that Library although I imagine some will.
Also the main thing is the Listing Requirement. It usually says something like " Both your production and any software sound or samples you use should be high-quality, modern-sounding and cutting-edge (nothing dated, please!). "
But some don't, so have at it for those throwback Listings if that's your thing.
Robertj64 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 6:28 am
Do you see the problem here?
Yes, it's folks inability to handle rejection, hear their own work objectively and decode briefs
Re: Disheartening
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:23 am
by Robertj64
[/quote]
Pretty sure that's just a reflection of the submissions received - I didn't read the RR Listing so I have no idea what the criteria was ? Did it say " must be contemporary" or was it wide open ? Were't they just picked at random from the forwards ?
It did not say anything about being contemporary but the screeners that are now reviewing the lot of songs are rejecting them based on that criteria. That is my point.
Re: Disheartening
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:24 am
by Robertj64
"Pretty sure that's just a reflection of the submissions received - I didn't read the RR Listing so I have no idea what the criteria was ? Did it say " must be contemporary" or was it wide open ? Were't they just picked at random from the forwards ?"
[/quote]
It did not say anything about being contemporary but the screeners that are now reviewing the lot of songs are rejecting them based on that criteria. That is my point.
[/quote]
Re: Disheartening
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:29 am
by Robertj64
cosmicdolphin wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:40 am
Robertj64 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 6:28 am
Mark, did you watch any of the panelists from the Road Rally?
Only a couple that include panelists who's Libs I have music in. To be honest I watched a lot of it at 1.25x speed
Robertj64 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 6:28 am
If you did, you would notice that the bulk of the songs presented were NOT contemporary and yet they got forwarded.
Pretty sure that's just a reflection of the submissions received - I didn't read the RR Listing so I have no idea what the criteria was ? Did it say " must be contemporary" or was it wide open ? Were't they just picked at random from the forwards ?
Robertj64 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 6:28 am
So if we apply your thinking then none of those songs that the panel heard should have been accepted yet they did ask for the songs to be forwarded to them. If the screeners had watched the panelists, they too would not be applying their own standards of "contemporary" and rejecting the tracks. Do you see the problem here?
There were a couple of decent songs I heard them ask for copies of, but those weren't dated sounding songs. They didn't have below broadcast quality production , and they didn't have sub-par vocals ( except one )
One or two asked for details of songs I wouldn't have chosen - The ones I would have picked
everybody picked. There's also no guarantee of those songs ending up being signed to that Library although I imagine some will.
Also the main thing is the Listing Requirement. It usually says something like " Both your production and any software sound or samples you use should be high-quality, modern-sounding and cutting-edge (nothing dated, please!). "
But some don't, so have at it for those throwback Listings if that's your thing.
Robertj64 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 6:28 am
Do you see the problem here?
Yes, it's folks inability to handle rejection, hear their own work objectively and decode briefs
That could be for some of the songs but also that there are cases where a consistency is lacking and how criteria can be changed when deciding whether to accept or reject a song.
Re: Disheartening
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:37 am
by cosmicdolphin
Robertj64 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:29 am
That could be for some of the songs but also that there are cases where a consistency is lacking and how criteria can be changed when deciding whether to accept or reject a song.
But each listing is has different criteria, and not every screener is going to agree with each other - It's never going to be consistent because it's subjective, all you can hope for is broad consensus