TAXI.com

Clearly Im missing something because all 3 of these got returned for 'instrumental performance';

Not that I couldnt have done anything better- Im just not sure what the performance problem was- Id like to know what parts need fixing...
BTW- thanks in advance- I know there is no reward for listening and critiquing here

http://soundcloud.com/saltysalt-1/under-a-red-moon

http://soundcloud.com/saltysalt-1/3-is- ... est-number

http://soundcloud.com/saltysalt-1/redemption

Hi Salty.

So it was a "Yes/No" and not a "critiqued by Taxi" so you don't get details. Well at least you were apparently on target 'cause they didn't check that box.

I think the songs are good and I would guess that the listing was for some kind of Newer Classical style.

As far as the performance there are a few things I hear.

In Red Moon, the strings (cellos?) sound a bit sloppy and I think it is because of the sample that you are using for that, you could use a more percussive (?) or shorter decay because the runs kinda run together. Also, that bass drum is kinda overpowering the mix, specially since it is tuned to a note that doesn't work with the whole song.

In Prettiest Number, you played the piano expressively, but in the context of the piece it sounds more "unsure" or "tentative" instead of expressive. As for the violins that come in half-way through, the swells are all the same and you can hear the sample re-trigger. Being able to play/program orchestral strings realistically is tough (I still don't know how to do it.) But that can be an "instrumental performance" tick by the screener.

Redemption has the same orchestral-sample-performance problems as the other two. I do like the slides in the strings (dunno what that is really called). I heard them in Prettiest and Redemption.

If the listing was for a Classical and/or Orchestral piece, then you are up against a really tough standard. Your compositions are really good. The trick is "performing" them believably.

rl

Good Comments-
thank you Russell.

could you post up the listing too? might help. thanks!

Yes- here it is;
only thing on the return was those 3 boxes checked- but it was yes/no, so a big narrative wasnt expected.


Y121024PO

CLASSICAL POP COMPOSERS needed by an A-list actor's production company for films to be released through a major studio. STRONG string arrangements, and a clear and COHESIVE mood/tone are required. Think instrumentation that creates and maintains an emotional focus, with arrangements that carry a listener from beginning to end seamlessly. Composers signed to the production company as a result of this will have the opportunity to work on all of the production company's upcoming film/TV projects in a co-publishing deal. You must be able to demonstrate a smart sense of structure, instrumentation, and overall production. Broadcast quality is needed (excellent home recordings are fine.) Please submit TWO to THREE instrumentals online or per CD. All submissions will be screened on a YES/NO BASIS - NO CRITIQUES FROM TAXI - and must be received no later than Wednesday, October 24, 2012. TAXI #Y121024PO

First, I wasn't quite sure what they were looking for so I did my best guess, sent three tracks but figured I'd get my stuff kicked back which is what happened. I also got "instrumental performance" checked on all three. Now... these are three of some of my best and most recent pieces. I have to assume that since this is a Yes/No only listing that "instrumental performance" is kind of a quick "catch-all". Sometimes that happens.

I submitted a song one time, a co-write with Jacqueline and got a return with "Vocal Peformance" checked. That really threw me because Jacqueline's vocals are always killer. Anyway, the screener added a little comment somewhere on the page that said "Vocal could be a bit louder in the track".

So in that particular case, they were using "vocal performance" as a catch-all for anything related to the vocal including a preference for the vocal being a bit hotter in the mix. I suspect that in this case that "instrumental performance" is being used as a catch-all on this Yes/No no-critique listing and didn't particularly mean that everything sucked canal water.

Thanks Dave- that makes me smile a bit;
I sent a letter in one time because I got 'vocals not broadcast quality' on a tune that had charted on Jazz radio- albeit that means 50 stations or so- but still that is '50' broadcast radiostations.
Its kind of caused me to be skeptical of some of the responses Im seeing sometimes- and thats in no way suggesting that there arent a ton of things I can improve upon- because there definitely are- or that the reviewers are often wrong, because much of the time there are logical reasons behind things that we dont always see or hear for that matter.

I got the big slap down 6 for 6 returned on this one. Several had the "instrumental peformance" box ticked. The way I deal with it is to append each tick box with the words "not right for this listing"

Most of what I submitted has already been signed so I know the pieces are right for other opps. It's simply the way the business works. To take it personally is simply a sign that one hasn't fully removed their ego from their craft. My hand is raised. Back to the studio.

Hey Salty,

Like the others say, there could be any number of reasons for a return. The boxes are so catch-all they're useless without a further comment from a screener.

My thoughts fwiw...

Red moon - some of the strings sounded quite synthy at times but I'm at a loss as to explain why. Perhaps one of the more accomplished orchestral guys would take a listen and give some insight.

3 - a really lovely piece, simple, flowing, elegant. Nothing stood out to me as objectionable. Some of the legato connections were a bit odd but I've heard live players sounding like that so I tend to not worry about that kind of thing. Again, you'd need an orch guru to give more useful feedback. I'm going to have to disagree with Russell re: your piano playing. I thought it was lovely and suited the piece. I didn't get "unsure" at all. The cue sounded like something I'd hear in a film. Maybe it just didn't grab the screener.

Redemption - again, a lovely flowing piece, very elegant. However, the violins instantly grated on my ears as quite harsh. I'd either use a more gentle articulation or wind back the velocity or eq some of the highs out - whichever is applicable to soften them. And once again, this is at the limits of my mock-up abilities. One of the other guys might be able to give more insightful feedback.

Ps. "BTW- thanks in advance- I know there is no reward for listening and critiquing here" - there is a reward. It helps develop critical listening skills. When listening to someone else's work it's easier to be more objective. Being able to hone in on specific elements and hear areas that need improvement or finding ideas that work well, etc., it becomes easier to apply critical listening to your own work. Interacting on the forum benefits all participants. It's a secret weapon. Those who don't use it are missing out (unless they're already world class).

Hmmm. I thought the "Music" box was the one the screeners used for the catch-all when it was stylistically on-target and the performances are good, but it is not "exactly" what they are looking for.

Mebbe different screeners use different boxes as their "catch-all." 'Specially if the screeners are the Music Supes themselves.

The Yes/No listings are so lacking in information, I don't see the returns (or the forwards) from them as particularly helpful. I'm not complaining, mind you. They are what they are and they have a place and reason.

rl