Rejected item review


#1

Hello all,

After about 10 days in review que, I submitted 3 tracks and all got hard reject. Here is one, I’d love some feedback:

Thanks!


#2

Hi,

I will give my very personal opinion.
I think that the problem is that you have only a kind of repetitive arpegio that only changes chords and a single note melody on the top of that.
Maybe if you could add some variations in the arpegio, and sometimes add 2 notes in the melody and maybe some other instruments like strings.

Is only my personal opinion trying to be helfull.


#3

Hi @rusanderson, thanks for sharing your tracks, sorry to hear that you haven’t broken through yet :frowning:

Here are my thoughts as I listen:

  • The arpeggio that happens all the way through doesn’t give a lot of ‘finality’ to the accompaniment, it might help to split up the use of arpeggios with some chords that don’t move as much. Maybe introduce a B section that sounds more positive and happy.
  • The chord movement (while I really like it) might not be the kind of thing that AJ is looking for, it’s usually more advantageous to stick to more predictable diatonic harmony. SIDEBAR: When you stick to diatonic harmony, you THEN have the opportunity to stretch your harmonic chops a bit.
  • It’s a bit bare, having it just be piano by itself. Maybe fill it out a bit with strings, percussion, woodwinds, etc.
  • It’s quite sad (which I love), but again this may not be the kind of vibe AJ is looking for.
  • The melody could use a little more repetition, give the listener something to chew on and think about.

Hope this helps! Overall it sounds great, you obviously know how to write and produce well, don’t give up!


#4

Hey, thanks for sharing your track with us!

The aforementioned points are valid, but I’d only like to add a couple of things:

  • I don’t have any qualms about using just the piano as your main instrument, however the problem is that it sounds really dry. I’d suggest adding a bit of reverb to give a slightly more spacey and atmospheric sound.
  • More variations on the theme would be really nice to have. Playing with dynamics also helps bringing a wider variety of moods to your track like different articulations, slight tempo variations, and different volume values to each note. It helps “humanizing” the sound a little bit, making it feel less robotic.

I hope it helps! :slight_smile: Don’t give up and work on making the piano feel more natural and flowing.


#5

Well, for a start…

It doesn’t sound dry at all, listen to the room reverberation on the lead part. Adding more reverb to a reverberated track won’t be a good idea here. And there is subtle hall-like reverberation on the left hand part too. That’s one of the issues for me, I don’t know if putting the two piano parts in different reverb spaces is justified (room/hall). Maybe even these are two separate piano libraries. Experimental mixing of a sort…
Now, to the arpeggio part - it’s repetitive, it’s mechanical, it lacks dynamics. There’s no movement to this part, it feels as if the left hand’s been programmed.
The composition doesn’t really have a climax and a proper ending, it cuts short abruptly and gets you by surprise. It would be wise to slow down the tempo to make sure everyone expects the composition to end.


#6

Hi All,

Great feedback, so far. I was concerned with the “single instrument” requirement, so thought that might be an issue.

Agree that the dynamics could be more, um, dynamic :wink:

Mostly, this was a mood piece. As I explained when submitted, I saw a young father with his son at the park. The father looked as if he were explaining the world to his son. It was awesome. This is what came of that, musically.

The abrupt end was kind of how their conversation ended.

Of course, the casual listener wouldn’t know this without visuals, but, it was what I felt musically.


#7

I think it is pretty dry, not the lead part, but the left hand. If the two parts had the same kind of subtle reverb, it would probably help them feel less detached to each other. Still, I think it’s a nit-pick compared to the composition per se whose flaws have already been addressed.


#8

Yes, but this is one of the problems of the stock music market in general - less room for self-expression and experimenting with format. We all have to stick to certain rules if we want our music sold.


#9

I’m finding this out :smile:

Thanks!


#10

What piano sample library did you use? I think the composition is nice, but the piano instrument itself doesn’t sound ‘real’ enough to be on its own. I agree that the piano sounds kinda dry; I think you need to extend the reverb’s decay time substantially. Arrangement wise, what may also help would be to perhaps invert the arpeggio so that you have lower notes, add some lower octaves, or even transpose the whole thing down a bit. I think that would help give a much fuller sound.

I think if you make the changes people have suggested, and work a little more on tweaking it, you might be able to resubmit it. I’m sure the submission rules say you can resubmit if it’s changed substantially without breaking the guidelines.


#11

I think you are fighting your piano library quite a bit here. The note A3 that’s repeated really has a distinct sound in the library you are using and is making things sound more mechanical than they need to sound. I took the liberty of recording a section with a different piano library

http://adammonroemusic.com/aj/faziolipianoexample.mp3

That’s the Imperfect Samples Fazioli Ebony Grand. I pretty much use it for all the solo stuff I submit here. I think it has a nice natural tone, but like any library it has quirks you need to fight with.


#12

I am using Logic X and used the Legacy - Jampack Symphony Orchestra - Orchestra Steinway Piano for the arpeggio part and the Legacy - Jampack 1 - Live Classical Piano for the melody.

The Steinway sample has little to no reverb while the Live has a nice amount.

I could definitely use some upgrades to my sound libraries. Maybe I could sell some tracks here to pay for them :wink: