I’ve been in the business of writing/producing music for over 20 years. It’s how I make my living. This business has always been one of 100 no’s to 1 yes when it comes to getting music placed or accepted. Quite simply you learn from your mistakes. So, I agree with the op of this article.
But, it’s amazing to me that when you do get a hard reject you get absolutely no feedback from the reviewer as to why they issued you a reject. I really believe that if AudioJungle wants to improve the quality of their catalog then they should tell composers…oops “authors” exactly why their music was not accepted.
I would appreciate it if the reviewer would tell me what I need to change rather than telling me: “After completing our review, we’ve determined that ‘your title here’ isn’t at the quality standard needed to continue forward with the review process on AudioJungle. As the submission is too far off the standards we require, you’ll be unable to re-submit on this occasion. This submission does not meet AudioJungle’s commercial production (samples/recording/mixing/mastering) standard, unfortunately.”
"To understand commercial stock composition, arrangement and production better, please read the following article http://enva.to/6D-sd "
There’s some great information in the article AudioJungle points you to. The problem with the information is that, more often than not, it leaves you as an author guessing as to why you received the reject rather than knowing exactly why. Would it be possible for the reviewer to simply use the article to point out the reason for the rejection…like just coming out and saying “Get to the point quickly” or “tuning issues” or “current samples”?
I believe that if authors received that kind of feedback AudioJungle would benefit from higher quality submissions.