Recently, my new song has been soft-rejected with suggestions to improve it. I’m very motivated to get this right now, because I take a considerable time to create high quality items, and so far my rejection rate was very low. I understand, that if the reviewer decided to soft reject the item instead of hard rejecting, my item still got a chance, and I really want to do my job right To make is as good as possible, I want to clarify the details about improvements that are needed.
I considered just filling the support ticket, but at the end I decided to open a thread on the forum, because any advices I might get will be also useful for other authors, and I also might get some valuable advices from other members.
Here is my question to the moderators – am I allowed to post a link to a soft rejected item in the thread? I don’t intend to break self-promotion rules. I will add the link if I get ensure I’m allowed to.Back to the subject, the reviewer’s reason of soft rejecting was:
The overall production quality is not to a high enough standard for inclusion in our library. The percussion in particular is too basic. You may submit again if you can improve the overall quality of the production.
The item was intended to be electronic piece with style between dance and house. So it’s true the percussion was very basic – 909 kit from my Alesis DM5 playing typical house 4 on the floor beat. It was deliberate, but definitely it might be changed to be more elaborate.
Still, I’d like to be sure about the range of the changes I should make, in order to avoid changing too much. So is there a problem with using the overused 909 kit, or playing too simple pattern, or both? And should I rethink other aspect of the production, like mix and mastering, or just submit it after rewriting the rhytm tracks? I’m afraid that after changing the track too much, it may be hard rejected because of that
Please upload it to soundcloud so we can hear it.
It sounds indeed a bit simple but I can’t say whats causing this. There definitely has the be more variation in the drums. I don’t have the feeling the song is going anywhere for some. It feels like it’s looping forever.
So what I would would change: -Maybe speed it up a little -try to make a buildup to a point where all hell breaks loose -use some effects in the background as white noise, backwards playing cymbals, ... -I think you also need some kind of a lead voice
I hope this is helping anything because I don’t really feel what’s missing
I’d try breaking it up into concrete sections: into, verse, chorus, middle8, etc… and use different chord patterns for at least two or three of these, and the one that use the same, add variation to the bass, drum variations with fills, risers, and such to break up the monotony. It also need more dynamics: build up to a climax, bring it down, the up to final climatic ending. You can re-upload a new reworked version for more discussion if you like.
You could also probably tighten the song up a lot and easily shave a whole minute or so off of it. If you want to provide the buyer the extra flexibility, include some variations – for instance a seamless loop of the main section – that will give them the additional length without having the main song feel like it goes on forever, and you won’t have to feel bad about trimming the main song down.
I agree that the problem was partially caused by the fact, that the piece is too long considering the small amount of musical themes in it. But first of all, I have to understand the direct reasons pointed out by the reviewer, because I need to have them fixed before I start thinking about any other improvements.
I also thought that background music is supposed to be simple and not too distinctive, in order to keep viewers attention focused on the main content of the media. Maybe I was wrong and turned too much into side of simplicity?
hmm, keep us posted on this one, this one is a little confusing, the soft rejects I have received have all been really specific and easy fixes. Because it is a soft reject your song definitely has a chance and they will get back to you very quickly. My only guess on this is that the overall production and instruments sounds sort of dated to me, early 90’s sort of, but if that’s what you’re going for you did it quite well. I would think if you’re putting it some sort of dance/electronic category it might need to have a more modern sound to it. Post again with your updated file once you decide what way to go, maybe we can all help give feedback on the improvements.
Yeah, this explaination makes a lot of sense to me. Although I’ve successfully submitted even more dated sound in Electronica category in past (a track stylized to 80s, even used a different device for drums because Alesis sounded too modern for that), but maybe I was wrong assuming that this category allows for older sounding variations of the genre. Anyway, this points out the direction the track should be developed. I just hope that reviewer will also add a few hints here, just to be sure about his point of view