TAXI.com

This is one of 3 returns from Listing D231220CP

I wrote the head-screener that I was struggling to understand the reasons and after his comments, I do accept it but have to say that it still left me with a sour taste since IMO the listing doesn't suggest clearly what then was critiqued by the screener. Maybe I'm not seeing something so I'd be more than curious about what you guys think of the screener's comments!


HERE IS THE TRACK: https://www.taxi.com/members/jFlSTGTDRQ ... -hot-metal


HERE IS THE LISTING

HARD-HITTING, STOMP-CLAP ROCK INSTRUMENTALS are needed by a great Publisher with an awesome track record of really big placements in TV Commercials!

This Publisher is on the lookout for Mid-to-Up-Tempo Instrumentals that could be found on a playlist with the examples below:

"Invincible" by The Phantoms

"Glory Days" by The Federal Empire

"The Drum" by The Seige

Although the references have vocals, please submit Instrumentals only for this pitch. Some non-lyrical vocals like "ahs," "woahs," etc., are okay to include – just don't overdo them!

Please send in top-tier Stomp-Clap Rock Instrumentals bursting with hard-hitting, epic energy all the way through! Your submissions should have unforgettable hooks, engaging stomp-clap-style rhythms, and dynamic arrangements with lots of forward motion and interest. Instrumentation that's in the general stylistic wheelhouse of the references will work best (think heavy, rockin' guitars, hard-hitting drums, bass, etc.). Please be sure your production is polished, and any virtual instruments or samples you use are high-quality and not dated-sounding.

Submissions should be about 2 minutes long, give or take. Non-faded, buttoned/stinger endings will work best for this pitch.





HERE IS THE CRITIQUE

: What I like most about this song

Great energy

I think you could improve this song by

The intro was long, and felt a bit disconnected from when the actual beat drops. This cue feels very busy, and does not have the time to breath. It is non stop and over produced in nature. The ending should also decay our naturally, as it feels like it was faded. Overall a better developmental arc to allow time to be open works best for edits and visual media, oppose to being too busy throughout.

I returned or forwarded this song because

The cue is well performed, however it is over produced and stay busy throughout. There are no moments to develop, as it is consistently non stop in production/voicings. It could also use a more decayed resolve, or a solid one at that.

I'm with you on this one Chris, I don't get it either. If it isn't right, then it isn't right, but when the comments sound like they apply to a different track its pretty confusing.

BTW its not much consolation, but I really like the track and have no doubt it will find a home.

Telefunkin wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 07, 2024 3:21 am

I'm with you on this one Chris, I don't get it either. If it isn't right, then it isn't right, but when the comments sound like they apply to a different track its pretty confusing.

BTW its not much consolation, but I really like the track and have no doubt it will find a home.

Thanks man, appreciate your comment and thanks for the kudos!

Hey Chris
Just a note first that you need to paste the text of the listing here, links to expired listings won't work for others.

I'm confused. Did head screener get back to you or are you still waiting on that? I agree that the screener's comments don't make sense for this track, whether a forward or return. At the minimum, you should get a full re-screen by another screener. The intro is short and the ending is fine. It does read like a review for a different track.

Without reading the listing... Great rock, well done! It does seem very repetitive on that one riff without much development up through 1:05. Good edit point at around 00:52. Definitely try a few libraries on your own and see what happens. I could also see making another version as A B A format, possible shorter (not sure), where you use material from the first minute as A, from the second minute as B, and then back to that A. With edit points, of course. That would break the repetitiveness and keep the listener feeling more like it's not all the same.

Best,
Casey

Sounds like a well performed, produced and licensable track to me but with out being able to read the listing and hear the refs it's hard to say whether I agree with the screener or not.

I certainly don't agree about the ending which makes me think there has been a mix up somewhere along the way and you have someone else's feedback.

Either way I'm sure you could get this into a library at some point. Nice work.

Mark

- I updated the post with the original text of the listing.

- the head screener did get back to me seconding the screener.
I‘m not blaming the head screener since he did overturn a sreeners decision for returns the last two times I complained.
This time he mentioned how picky the client is only wanting high bar stuff. My point is, that it’s not clear by reading the brief what exactly THAT high bar is.

- I‘m pleased to hear that you guys also see that the critique is a bit off regarding the track (it’s similar for the two others)

- I hope you‘ll find some clues reading the listing

I think the screener's reasons were strange but where I could see the return based on: "dynamic arrangements with lots of forward motion and interest". As I mentioned, it's repetitive and doesn't develop forward. But it's a GREAT track and it will find a home. And if you created these tracks because of this listing, that's a plus as you wouldn't have them otherwise. I know that doesn't completely soothe the disappointment.

Best,
Casey

Casey H wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 07, 2024 8:52 am

I think the screener's reasons were strange but where I could see the return based on: "dynamic arrangements with lots of forward motion and interest". As I mentioned, it's repetitive and doesn't develop forward. But it's a GREAT track and it will find a home. And if you created these tracks because of this listing, that's a plus as you wouldn't have them otherwise. I know that doesn't completely soothe the disappointment.

Best,
Casey

But isn’t the critique „over produced“ not exactly the opposite? I read it as too many twists and turns and not enough repetition, „time to breathe“ as the screener mentioned !

To ME, "over-produced", is more about engineering & mix than repetition of a motif, repetition, structure, etc. But we've established we're having trouble relating that review to this track. It wouldn't have been a forward anyway IMHO because of what I said in my other comment. Let it go, pitch for other opps, and move on. If you get confusing reviews again in the future, contact Taxi again.

Casey H wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 07, 2024 10:14 am

To ME, "over-produced", is more about engineering & mix than repetition of a motif, repetition, structure, etc. But we've established we're having trouble relating that review to this track. It wouldn't have been a forward anyway IMHO because of what I said in my other comment. Let it go, pitch for other opps, and move on. If you get confusing reviews again in the future, contact Taxi again.

Sure, Casey! I have places for those tracks anytime. I just don’t like to not understand things, but as you said I guess I‘ll have to throw that one in the „not for me to understand“ box