AudioJungle should improve the hard-rejection feedback

Hi, there.

In addition to being the happy developer of WavePlayer, a plugin for WordPress that has just turned 1000-license old and has already earned me the Author Level 5 badge, I have been composing, producing, orchestrating, conducting and mixing music for the past 20 years. Ironically, coding is not my main job but something I do for fun in my spare time, even though, here on Envato, I seem to be more successful as a programmer rather than as a composer! :smiley:

I have been trying to navigate myself through the AudioJungle guidelines so that I better understand what is the exact target we have to follow in order to be fully in line with what the reviewers are judging worthy. I also spent much time searching for further information on this forum. My experience as a composer gives me a good understanding of what “commercial quality standard” means and, most importantly, how music can be created to help editors easily complete the job without too many hassles. And I also totally get the fact that AudioJungle is interested in keeping its library up to its quality standard (although, every now and then, I come across tracks that are shockingly amateurish).

Nevertheless, the line between “commercial quality standard” and “cloned music, as long as it follows the standard” can be very blurry. The risk is that a library could soon become crowded with tracks that are not too dissimilar from each other and, most importantly, don’t showcase a strong personality. Particularly, the authors who have just started producing music for AudioJungle might play safe by “mimicking” what is already in the library, rather than fully express themselves.

Of course, I believe there should be plenty of room for composers to express themselves without leaving the reign of a commercially suitable music track. That is the reason why I feel like the canned responses we receive when we get a track hard-rejected should include a much broader and more specific list of details. I am not saying that the reviewer should give us a lengthy magazine-like review on our tracks and I understand that Envato is trying to keep the reviewing times as short as possible. At the same time, I feel that just saying that a track does not meet the general commercial quality standard required to be accepted on AudioJungle is not enough and leave us, authors, completely in the dark about the very reason why a track was rejected. Maybe a dropdown list in their review control panel allowing them to select one or more reasons why they believe the track is not up to the standard could be a solution, pretty much like the ones we use when we submit a ticket to the Support.
Even simply providing a single word for each issue that, in their opinion, was affecting the track would be so helpful. Much more than receiving a generic and unhelpful canned response. A short detail, maybe taken from a list of the most popular issues, such as “writing/composition”, “sample quality”, “mix/mastering”. Something that would give us a clue and help us fix the issue on the next submission.

All that being said, and apologizing for the lengthy post, I would like to have your opinion on the possible reasons why the following track got rejected. The version you are going to listen to is the longest one but I had also included in the package shorter cuts, down to 60 seconds.

All the best and Happy New Year!
Luigi.

1 Like

Well, the piano sounds nice, but the blip-blop synth at 0:17 would be “nope” number 1.

In my opinion, very out of place, and mixed way too loud. I would delete that track and keep it very far away from any music like this. :slight_smile:

Nope number 2 would be the thin snare that also screams “I don’t belong here”. In addition to being way too thin, it also jumps up and down in volume in a distracting way.

Also, no vibrato (or at least almost no vibrato) on the electric lead guitar, which is not how most real experienced guitar players would do it.

It’s a pretty nice track, cool feel, but I would also have rejected it if it was up to me. Too many mistakes and things that sound like they don’t belong, in my opinion.

It could definitely be reworked into something that would be accepted and sell though! Best of luck!

2 Likes

Hey @LuigiPulcini!

Thanks for your words! I could not have written it better and I totally second nearly all of your mentioned points and I would love to get at least a keyword on a hard reject. With just “no commercial quality standard” as a reason we authors won’t be able to learn. And much time could be saved, instead of us authors have to post in these forums for feedback, while other authors might only be able to guess what the reason of the reviewer was for a rejection!

I am also confused to find some, like you wrote, amateurish tracks here on AJ, while having a quite decent track rejected. Maybe there is a reason for it and I absolutely do not want to question any reviewer or the “mindset” of AJ in general. I am just very eager to understand the principles. I am composing and producing music for over 15 years now professionally and a feedback like “does not fulfill commercial quality” just seems quite like a punch in the face to me, unfortunately. Maybe some other reasons would be much more motivating like: “just does not fit to the AJ library style” or “already too many of such tracks”. These are just some ideas.

Regarding your track: I think that @KontoImperium already mentioned some good points and I would second them. :slight_smile:

Good luck with your next submission, Luigi! And all the best.

1 Like

@KontoImperium
Thank you so much for kindly taking the time to review my track in great detail and for positively commenting on the track and its mistakes. I totally understand your points. They are definitely putting me in the right direction, which is the main reason why I posted in the first place.

@KontoImperium wrote:
It could definitely be reworked into something that would be accepted and sell though! Best of luck!

Your last comment re-enforces my idea that the hard-rejection feedback is way too generic to make it useful at all. Not to mention that, according to your experienced opinion, this could have easily been a soft-rejection, instead, had the reviewer decided to point those elements out. I get that with tens of new tracks uploaded every day and a possibly increasing number of AJ authors, the threshold for a successful approval process was pushed to a higher level. At the same time, I feel like AJ is preventing its library from modernizing and get a “fresh breath” from the “war of clones” that is undoubtedly affecting the library.

Now, in addition to your suggestions, it is JUST a matter of understanding how to rework this track in such a way that would also pass the review in regards to the re-submission requirement for hard-rejected tracks, as per the directions found in THIS ARTICLE

@Tagirijus
Thanks for supporting my points. I was trying to keep my considerations as constructive as possible. My main goal was not to complain about the hard-rejection. I can definitely live with that or re-work the track or submit it somewhere else.
What puzzles me is the evident contradiction between the scarcely informative feedback and the following assertion that one can find in the knowledge base article I linked above:

from Common Rejection Reasons for Envato Market
If this item was previously hard-rejected, it must be changed as required in the initial review or significantly improved such that it qualifies as a new item.

If the above-mentioned initial review is so vague, chances are that an author would end up submitting the track “as is” to a different market rather than trying to shoot in the dark in a possibly infinite revision process. And even asking here in the forum, as much educational as it can be, it is not like being 100% sure what the issues are, learning them from the very mouth of the original reviewer.

In any case, thanks for the insights, the support, and the appreciation. I am definitely motivated in bringing my approval rate to 100% of the submitted tracks! :smiley:

1 Like