Gareth, as usual you make perfect sense to me. +1
I’m not sure that any of us deliberately apply different levels of quality to our tracks – whatever my subjective view of quality is, I apply the same one to all my work. If a reviewer accepts 19 of my tracks and rejects the 20th, there is I assume a difference of opinion as to what is quality between me and the reviewer in some regard I can only guess about (and it might take a few more submissions before I guess right!)
Of course with many libraries it could be that they already have tracks in that genre they are happy with and don’t feel they need any more, nothing specifically wrong with my track, they just feel having it will add to admin and not increase sales – my timing was just off. In another case maybe the reviewer hates the cimbalom because he cut his finger on one as a child and this is the first track I submitted that uses one.
Now, he’s the reviewer, he can reject whatever he wants whenever he wants and as a composer/musician you have to accept that and move on. However, if he doesn’t want to re-live any unhappy childhood memories of mutilation via central-eastern European hammered dulcimers, he could save himself a lot of time and post traumatic stress medication by telling me why he rejected my track.
True, most libraries give no feedback at all – but I guess I’m just an optimist who continues to believe that, overall, feedback can save time by preventing people submitting tracks destined for rejection and allowing reviewers to focus on tracks they are more likely to accept.
Of course, there will still be rejectees who don’t learn from their feedback and take the rejection personally – but I suspect reviewers who don’t give feedback will have to suffer those responses just the same
Besides ,by not giving detailed feedback for hard rejection, they 1) speed up the review process and 2) are actually helping you develop your own ear/intuition and ability to evaluate your own music, even if you don’t realize it at first.
I think we’re starting to mix things up here. I don’t believe anyone has asked for detailed feedback for a rejected item, but maybe I’ve missed that post. Specifically, Magenta mentioned “a couple of words”.
I think it best everyone get on the same page. Are we talking about detailed feedback or a few words of feedback (Author getting a general direction)? I thought the latter was what we were discussing. B/c it does make a difference.
I just meant a couple of words, sometimes a reviewer leaves a comment like ‘nice work’ or ‘cool track’ – something like ‘muddy mix’ or ‘unrealistic midi’ or ‘composition quality’ or maybe ‘I was savaged by a ukulele as a child… ok, maybe that one’s not too likely around here
Fair points for sure. But here’s the problem with brief feedback. If very brief direction is given, e.g. bad MIDI mockup, and then it’s returned, and it’s still bad. How far do you go? There’s no guarantee the feedback will fix things.
Likewise with composition, how broken does a composition have to be for it to be unsubmittable? If you write ‘composition quality’, what does that mean? Boring melody? Unimaginative chords? Poor structure? Poor arrangement? What if the composition quality doesn’t improve the next time. Does the reviewer still write ‘composition quality’?
And all of a sudden, what at first seems to be a ‘quick 2-word bit of feedback’, a reviewer has spent a lot more time on.
Besides, most of the hard-rejected tracks usually have multiple issues, not just one.
Brief feedback provides more questions than answers, and will leave authors even more frustration. If reviewers are going to give feedback, then they probably need to to it properly, or not at all.
As a side note, I know the biggest problem for many authors is determining what is ‘commercially viable’. Well, what is ‘commercially viable’ is everything you hear around you during the day and on TV, and on film, etc… Use your ears, listen, analyze.
Please don’t get me wrong, I do understand the desire for more feedback and that direction might help, but I have been on both ends of the stick (giving and receiving feedback) and not doing it properly, especially for creative works, opens up more problems in the long run. That’s why soft-rejected tracks get the feedback, because they are fundamentally already there. It takes a LOT more to fix a hard rejected track, and while it’s clearly not impossible, I can understand why it’s best in the long run for the site to pay more attention to the soft-rejected tracks. ADG3 mentions this on another thread.
One final thing, and it amazes me that more authors don’t use this feature – this is what the “Item Discussion” feature on the forums was made for. You will get some tough love, but it will help.
My general sentiment remains the same, long-term you are better off training your own ears and working with no feedback. Listen to what IS getting accepted on the marketplace, analyze why it is accepted and what makes a track acceptable in any of the genres. Use your ears.
All fair points Gareth, however, at least a pointer in the right direction tells an author it is the quality of their mock-up skills that needs improvement rather than that their track sounds great but contravenes a marketplace policy. The current rejection notes are just a bit too generic.
How about a series of common ‘tick boxes’ for reviewers that gives some pointers as to the area(s) the track is falling down in, and a footnote that suggests authors use the ‘Item Discussion’ forum if they need more detailed feedback?
I also understand the logic of learning from what has succeeded for others in the past – but that advice can lead to a lot of ‘me-too’ tracks which lack the original authors skill / motivation / genre knowledge and negates the possibility that someone might come up with the next big bandwagon?
This particularly applies to me, as my hands are way too big to play an Ab7 on the uke!
Constructive feedback should in theory contribute to improvement, which raises quality which is good for all of us. The problem with a generic rejection is that the author does not know if it is:
- Composition quality
- Production Quality
- ‘marketplace policy’ (I assume this means something other than the music)
If you sell files on this marketplace, you will be treated like a professional (as will everyone else here). As a result, it’s your job as a professional composer to be able to work out the answers to the question above, not AJ’s.
If you do this for a while – whether you work in stock, music-to-picture, or other aspects of music media – you will end up working with people who:
- Give no feedback at all.
- Give too much feedback (Yes, there is such a thing).
- Give feedback that makes no sense.
As a composer, you have to work out what it all means, and then you have to be able to self-critique your work and work out what’s wrong with it. Sometimes it isn’t obvious, sometimes it is.
Besides ,by not giving detailed feedback for hard rejection, they 1) speed up the review process and 2) are actually helping you develop your own ear/intuition and ability to evaluate your own music, even if you don’t realize it at first.Sure it’s annoying if you get a track rejected, but work out WHY it was rejected. That’s your job, not AJ’s. As explained earlier, giving soft-rejected tracks feedback is a far better use of reviewers’ time than giving hard-rejected tracks feedback.
Thank you, Gareth, this just sums it up and there is really nothing to add. As far as I had the chance to listen to some of the hard rejections here on the forums lately, I can totally understand why they were hard rejected and I am really glad that obviously AJ took the 100.000 item mark as a milestone to raise the quality bar.
All that’s left to say is:
+100 Thank you, Gareth, this just sums it up and there is really nothing to add. As far as I had the chance to listen to some of the hard rejections here on the forums lately, I can totally understand why they were hard rejected and I am really glad that obviously AJ took the 100.000 item mark as a milestone to raise the quality bar.
Just to clarify – I’m not saying that AJ is rejecting tracks they shouldn’t be rejecting, nor am I arguing that it is not best for all concerned for the quality bar to be raised.
The question I am posing is as to whether a small pointer in the rejection feedback will raise the quality of submissions faster than a generic rejection which allows the author to interpret that they have fallen foul of a marketplace policy or a reviewer that doesn’t like their genre – rather than whatever the legitimate reason is.
I don’t think anyone uploads a submission believing that it is perfect for hard rejection, they assume it is good enough to be accepted. Some method that gets them to understanding what they are doing wrong, I was thinking, would reduce the likelihood that the next track they upload would be a waste of the reviewer’s time. I realise you can take the view that it is not AJs job to wet-nurse newbie authors – I guess I just take the view that sometimes, doing stuff that we shouldn’t have to do can end up as being in our best interest in the long run.
Unfortunately your submission Ant Colony isn’t ready for AudioJungle and cannot be resubmitted as it did not meet our minimum requirements for quality and/or marketplace policies. In order for submissions to be considered for sale they must be of high aesthetic and technical quality, unique to our library and cannot be in violation of Envato’s policies. Please see our Knowledgebase for more information: http://support.envato.com/index.php?/Knowledgebase/List
Thanks for your submission! – The Envato Marketplaces Team
It took them 15 seconds to hit this button and it is some what of a feed back isn’t it? Now if they had different buttons for feed back such as LumenMedia suggested (And Review team agreed to look at them) It would surely help the authors on this site and the review team. Que length you say? well I and many others will be re submitting our hard rejected tracks HOPING we fixed the RIGHT thing. But it is equal to driving blindfolded. And those tracks will be in line waiting to get approved/rejected making the queue longer. One last thing is that stubbornness and stupidity share a close line.
Hi Kurly – this not intended as an attack on you. Please understand from the get go. But…
composing a track suitable (non hard rejected) for AJ is the equivalent of “driving blindfolded”..?
And your quote that “stubbornness and stupidity share a close line.” – well, yeah…I guess they do. You’re the authority on this subject around here.
In all seriousness – you had me totally convinced you were “actually” 13. You do a scary impression of one. I’m not even remotely kidding here. For serious.
Seeing as you appear to be a real adult then may I offer this purely in the spirit of constructive criticism…Crystal World is a good track and I’m glad it’s your featured item. You should direct your considerable energy back into writing music, and not repetitive and immature posts. I’m not trying to be mean at all – I really think you would benefit from it. Your life would be fuller.
Part of me feels bad into baiting you into the 13 year old thing (part of me thinks it was hysterical, but I’d be dishonest if I didn’t cop to it). Don’t whine at AJ, it’s getting you nowhere and you’re doing it very publicly. There is no upside to this approach – ask a rational person for proof of this. There are several of these people who appear in these forums regularly. Use “Item Discussion” more frequently – this is where a majority of your recent posts belong.
Take this thing seriously and you might have a great life where you earn your money from music and don’t have to do tedious things you’re not passionate about. Don’t throw unfounded comments/accusations at strangers, reviewers and peers – life works better when you contribute positivity.
And make sure you get your parents or guardian’s permission before driving blindfolded next time. It’s very hazardous. (joke)
I really hope you can focus on music and leave the negative stuff behind.