There is a specific rule about variations and remixes. You just need to browse AJ page a bit to find it. This rule states, that for every song, there is only 1 remix allowed. It must be explicitly names as the remix of the song, and it must be “substantially” different.
Probably your 2nd version of the track is didn’t meet what reviewer thinks is “substantially” different. Maybe the instrumentation, however different, is not different enough.
I guess this rule is to protect AJ from flooding with thousands of alternative versions of the same tracks. It’s clear that I might make 10 alternative versions of every track per day and punch my way to homepage with 3000 uploads per month if there was no such rule.
Your 2 versions were definitely legitimate, but the rule is the rule. If the alternative versions are very similar, they would better be uploaded as one item (preview should include both). If they are really different (one acoustic with ukulele, another hard rock with heavy riffs ;)) the other one can go as a remix, but just once.
Of course it’s arguable what is similar and what is different, but these are the rules I’ve read about and we must do our best to comply with them. Good luck with getting your 2nd track accepted!
The cracking sounds in brass in 0:28 0:38 1:25 sound to me just like a result of too much high frequencies, they don’t sound like typical clipping cracks. Whatever the reason, this is where you should take the most care to change the settings, however my bet is the whole mastering should be improved, not only these spots which only reveal the problem most painfully.
Still agree the composition and arrangement is really good
What monitoring system have you used mastering this track? The EQ settings are extreme in this recording. It seems like the track mastered to sound perfectly on the cheapest PC speakers, so the bass and treble are boosted too much.
I’ve listened to it using Beyerdynamic DT-770 headphones and the amount of ultra-low bass was overwhelming and uncontrolled, and the sound was much too sharp because of excessive high tones. This is not natural EQ setting for orchestral music, even if some extreme techno genres might work out with such settings.
You might need to listen to this track with many different audio systems, including both cheap equipment and high end studio systems and probably some good home cinema system with powerful subwoofer, before you decide on the right EQ setting that should compromise all of them. With current EQ setting, this track might probably smash windows with sufficiently big subwoofer
Good luck improving the mastering, because apart of this, the track sounds great.
Quality and quantity is an ideal, but impossible with 2 hours per week to spare Full time job or full time composing – the day has only 24 hours unfortunately.
Happily, I had 5 sales today. When I get to the point of getting that much everyday, I’ll switch to full time composing and partial daily job!
Impressive amounts guys! How can you make so many tracks without working with them fulltime? With a day job, I’d rather think how many months do I need to make one track
There was a very short period when I didn’t know that front page exposure is such a lousy way to promote. I tried to submit many tracks per month, but their quality was so poor, that after one year I’ve deleted half of them, and also a few of them were even rejected. The whole bunch of such tracks has given less benefit than one quality track that takes about a month or two to complete.
But I can spend only a few hours once or twice a week to create music, so this is a big limitation. This would change a lot if I could earn 25% of my income from AJ and reduce my day job hours to 75% of full employment.
Maybe apart of saying about number of tracks you could say how much time you spend making them?
Sounds much better in this version You may also like to add a referral to ‘Buy’ link on SoundCloud to get additional 30% of sales from newly registered customers. Good luck on sales!
Information about song usage is definitely a good idea. It will give two benefits – first, the author will be able to keep track on item usage, second – the buyer will no longer have excuse to use the music half-legally, by buying one license but using the track in multiple final products.
It’s clear that some buyers might not fill the information honestly, but at least, when author finds his track used somewhere, he can check if this usage has been reported. If it’s not, he can pursue a legal action.
If the usage of the track is directly connected to a URL, for example, a YouTube film, a link to this YT page may be provided. This makes easy to check for legitimate uses of the music.
One small detail bothers me, however. Art-of-Sound says something about licence duration. Is there really a time limit between item purchase and its actual use? I didn’t know about such thing. I’ve bought some AJ tracks just because I liked them, for the purpose of just listening to them, but I considered using them also in YouTube videos after a year or two – at the moment I didn’t event think about subject of these videos. If this is not allowed by a licence, I will just not be able to use them after such delay. But if it’s legitimate, I wonder if it could be possible in the proposed item use formular, to be able to specify the track use long time after buying it.
Obviously, if the information about track use could be specified later, it increases the risk that the buyer will never fill it. But on the other hand, it seems quite possible, that somebody buys the track before making his mind about the exact usage. If this is a YouTube video, it may even take time to create it – if the video is intended to be strictly syncronized to the audio, it might take some work to edit it this way, before uploading to YouTube. This is just a technical problem, but it must be dealt with, to make the item usage form working efficiently.
Maybe filling the usage information would be not required in a moment of purchase, but the licence might contain the requirement, that it must be filled when the final product is made publictly available, otherwise a legal action is about to begin against the publisher of the product. This would allow for adding this information later, but would enforce to fill it before publishing. Also, there might be a deal between Envato and YouTube, offering YT a webservice with item usage information, that might be used in YT copyright protection system.
This thread is definitely useful one. I’ve just bought my first ukulele today After some practice, I’ll try to record it with my old Shure 16A mic – it’s a small condenser mic with very bright, sometimes too sharp sound. Worked nice with acoustic guitars, I suppose it may work out great with uke.
I’d say if a track has no views, it means that the promotion for this track is issuficient. 0 sales with little views is not a problem of the track, because how could it be bought if nobody knows it exists?
If there are hundreds of views and still no sales, this might mean the track quality is the problem, but some tracks still can be reedited. If they can’t, it makes sense to delete them indeed.
But deleting tracks just because they have no sales is just artificial making the portfolio look good. Or not even that, because track with 1 or 2 sales look as bad as 0 sales – it definitely didn’t pay for its production cost.
Could you post the new version on SoundCloud? I think this might sound great if all these small technical issues were fixed.