Tracks in the style of existing items got rejected, why?

Hello dear fellow composers and authors (and maybe reviewers!) from AudioJungle!

I am quite new here, while I alreay produce professional music for over 15 years now. I got some tracks approved already and even 2 sales, yay. (-;

Now with this thread I really want to understand how the reviewing authors work. I already got tracks rejected, while I definitely was sticking to the ruls and I even have oriented to existing tracks. The reason was always “does not meet the general commercial quality standard” - whatever this means, when there are quite similar tracks by other authors on AudioJungle approved already. Yes I read the help article regarding music quality etc. and all the stuff with “repitition”, “get fast to the point”, “quality and mix should be professional sounding” - I think I got this, which makes me think it must be something else. Maybe some of you can even give me feedback and I do over-hear something?

First track I want to present, which got rejected:

Other similar tracks on AJ:



And then there is this track:

Other somehow similar tracks on AJ:



So some of these AJ tracks are quite recently approved. I totally do not understand why my tracks got rejected with this reason quoted above, while other tracks do sound nearly the same.

I also really would like if the reviewers could at least point out which element made them chose their decision to reject the track so that I / or we authors could learn from it. This way like it is now it just feels random to me and not comprehensible, unfortunately. No hard feelings, though !!! I really want to understand in which direction I should produce my music more. (=

I am happy for every kind of reply and help. Thank you all! (=

Have nice christmas days, everybody!

1 Like

Hello @Tagirijus !
On your first track it seemed to me a bit too much the lower middle (buzz) of 200-400 Hz. It annoys a little.

The second track: as in my opinion your synthesizers sound as outdated. And also unfinished arrangement. Too monotonous, there is no development at all. Also the bass and lower middle seemed to me “sticking out”.

My humble opinion. :slightly_smiling_face:

Good luck!

2 Likes

First of all thanks for your reply! (=

I understand that this can be a matter of taste, probably. I do not understand why this is a reason to not soft reject a track with improvement wishes, though. )=

Regarding the arrangement and “monotonous”: on the one site this is wanted so that the track might be perfect for a simple backing track without being distracting, while on the other site so many tracks here on AJ are way more monotonous. So how did they got approved in the first way?

Regarding “outdated synthesizers”: I think the title should explain that this is intentionally as well, of course. I also found tracks on AJ with an old fashioned synth sound.

Regarding the bass and lower middle: same thing as for the first track: a soft reject with improvement wishes would be no problem in that case, right?

Thanks for your reply! (=

1 Like

Good questions, but I expressed my thoughts, and you is better to ask reviewers these two questions.
I can not know the answer. :slightly_smiling_face:

Good luck! :wink:

1 Like

Yeah, thank you very much for your thoughts and your musical feedback! I appreciate it !!

Hopefully a reviewer might get into this discussion. AFAIK this is the only way to get in contact (at least the reject mail said so).

Have a nice evening / day! (=

1 Like

Hello Tagirijus!

The first track is really good, maybe it’s just a matter of taste.

And at the expense of the second track I completely agree with the opinion of @CleanMagicAudio

I think in your cases you just need to continue to make efforts) everything will work out. but maybe not right away.

Hi SmartSounds: first of all: thanks for your reply as well! Regarding the “matter of taste”: shouldn’t it be that the track should fit to AJ and not only to the reviewers taste? I mean: nearly exactly similar tracks are on AJ already. That’s what I am still not understanding at all, unfortunately. “Taste” should not be a reason here, since it is subjective to one person.

Regarding the second track: seems like it does not fit to AJ probably. I stil would love this kind of feedback instead of “does not has the needed commercial quality”. Sounds a bit disencouraging. :frowning:

Thanks for the feedback, though! So nice of you both already! :slight_smile:

Hi @Tagirijus.

Years ago, reviewers would occasionally reply with advice or recommendations for improving submissions if they thought the tracks were close to good enough.

However, in recent years, the number of authors has dramatically increased as have the number of submissions.

It isn’t feasible for reviewers to provide specific details when they reject tracks. There isn’t enough time. They wouldn’t be able to keep pace with the number of submissions coming in.

It’s a trade-off. There was a time when the review wait time was 30 days. You would submit a track and wait a month to find out whether it was approved or rejected.

Authors lobbied for shorter review times, and in order for that to happen, reviewers have to approve or reject tracks without providing specific feedback.

That’s why the rejection email will suggest you post your rejected tracks on the forums and have other authors give you constructive feedback.

And finally, yes, you are correct: evaluating music is somewhat subjective, so not everyone will hear everything the same way or value it the same.

There is a great post somewhere on the forums written by Envato staff that discusses the music reviewing process here. Basically, the writer described submissions as being divided into three groups: good tracks worthy of fast approval, bad tracks worthy of fast rejection, and a lot of tracks somewhere in the middle.

Those tracks that are “somewhere in the middle” are the ones that will sometimes get approved and sometimes get rejected, and the outcome is a bit more dependent on reviewer interpretation or taste - and when those “somewhere in the middle” tracks are heard relative to other good and bad submissions.

For example, let’s say a reviewer has just listened to a very professionally produced orchestral action track and approved it. Then the reviewer listens next to an orchestral track made with a slightly dated-sounding symphony library that has some issues with the mix. It has some worthy qualities and it’s not a terrible track, but the reviewer is hearing it right after listening to something that was excellent and worthy of instant approval.

He or she might be inclined to reject this middle-of-the-road submission in this situation.

Good luck with your future submissions!

1 Like

Hey promosapien, thank you so much for taking the time explaining it the way you did. I totally understand this; no question! I already somehow thought about that, but still it is nice to have it explained by a more experienced member of this community (and thus hav it somehow “confirmed”). :slight_smile:

Still: wouldn’t it be at least an option to have something like “does not fit into the AJ library” rather than “not a sufficient commercial quality”? I find the first one way more motivating after all. :wink: … I am just a bit nitpicky now, I know!

Thank you all for your replies. It makes me feel like the community is quite nice here! :slight_smile:

1 Like

The clap track doesn’t sound bad, but after about 30 seconds most listeners have had enough. 2 minutes of this gets a bit boring. As you see, the tracks you linked to are much shorter and it feels like they are going somewhere.

And, like with most tracks that now have about 10,000 soundalikes, the level has to be raised for acceptance. Just because something was accepted when there were 30 tracks like it, doesn’t mean that 3 years later, a track that doesn’t bring anything new will be accepted. Even if it sounds good.

1 Like

Happy to help. I’ve been here a few years and my experience is that the community of authors is very supportive and helpful if you reach out here on the forums.

1 Like

Hey KontoImperium, thanks for your feedback as well. You have an interesting point there! I did not really noticed that the other tracks are way shorter! This is a good point and I understand this. Still: I also had 60, 30 and 15 seconds plus two stem versions in the zip … but yes, the main track might be too long with around 2 minutes. Thanks for this new perspective! :slight_smile: