What should be improved with this item? It was hard rejected again.
I made quite a lot of changes, but te reviewer said it’s stil not enough, despite several original ideas.
Latest version:
Old version:
1 Like
Very beautiful composition, well done, I like it very much! 
I don’t know what is the reason of the rejection, maybe a bass line could complete the track, but it’s only my opinion… The strings sound it’s great, very realistic and I don’t hear problems for mixing/mastering… Good luck!
1 Like
Thanks, but there must be a reason for the hard rejection. Maybe the beat/kick and claps need some changes?
Well, it can sometimes be hard to pinpoint just one or two specific things - it sometimes just feels like an unfinished track.
Great idea and feel, but there is almost no bass, why is that? Right now, it sounds more like a jam to a beat, or a loop, than an actual song.
I would say that the lack of (electronic) bass, and an overall “jam to a loop” feel is what caused this rejection. I feel it would need more work to be developed into a finished product.
1 Like
Ok so I will work on the bass
Well, I don’t think just adding bass will get this approved, it needs much more work than that. But adding some bass is a good step forward.
Personally, I would change the beat a bit, especially the kick drum. I don’t think the 16th note kicks before the claps fit with the strings - I would stick to 8th notes to glue better with the string rhythm.
Also, out of curiosity, why is it called “swing”? It’s not swing jazz and it has a straight feel?
1 Like
I was planning on working on the beat, but there was no remark about that, so I didn’t reply to that
A good title is always a problem. I didn’t mean jazz swing, but just because of the second part I added this.
I would rather pick a real title then just describing the instruments/mood, but what are the chances to be found by doing that… I follow your suggestion and leave it out.
Sometimes I don’t know which way to go anymore. Doing too much, doing too little, too much melody, no real melody at all, overcompressing, or almost none etc. etc…? My aim is always to keep the sound as pure as possible, compressing minimally and not repeating the tracks that are already in the librarie. I guess I take some risk that way.
Thanks for your input!
Hard rejected again.
What’s needed more?
See my update in the original post.
1 Like
at 1:44 I hear a big dissonance between bass and the rest of instruments, are you sure if this is not a mistake? The bass note should not be the same as that at 1:48?
Hi @Floberaudio at 1:44 it’s an A and at 1:48 a Bb. It should fit fine in the harmony. The bassline is conversed.
I don’t think this was the reason for the hard reject. The reviewer clearly doesn’t want this kind of track.
I don’t now what to fix more to get this track approved here. I give up on this track here.
Thanks for your input!
In the section starting at 1:34, I hear this sequence of chords (simplified version):
| Dm | Gm (1° inversion)/Bb | Dm (2° inversion) | Dm (1° inversion)/Bb | Dm (1° inversion) | ? |…
The ? sounds to me like an Bb/A, maybe your intention it’s different… if I were you I would have repeated a simple Bb or a Bb/D… Anyway it’s a fine track, I love it!
Yeah you’re right about the sequence and inversion (it’s just 1 note difference).
Anyways…I love the track too , however it’s found that it does not quite meet the general commercial standard to be accepted on Audiojungle… so I have to leave it at that and move to the next track.
I would definitely place strings or soft brass long notes harmony in the background. It needs to sound fuller deeper eventually to my taste. On the mix side, your strings motif are not bright enough to me (a bit too much low end not enough treble). Overall a great track.
1 Like