My guess is that roughly 99.99% of the authors here do it themselves, but it would be interesting to find out if anyone lets someone else do it.
Very nice track, but you spelled “Dubstep” wrong.
If you have Gmail – list “All mail” or it will be hidden.
Well, it instantly makes you think of the original, that’s for sure, as the phrasing (and song form) is the same.
I don’t think you would get in trouble here though, since the melody is different. Personally though, I would probably change the phrasing of the melody to avoid being so obviously inspired by the original. And maybe change one of the sections to not reflect the original exactly in terms of structure.
It can never hurt to have more versions, but in my experience, it’s more important to include a “no drums” version or another alternate mix, rather than just cutting it down to 30/60 seconds.
Editors can easily edit the timing themselves, and they might not want to use the exact parts you used in your edit anyway.
Of course, if you feel like you have the time, make 5 versions of every track.
It’s so nice to listen to this guy – if only all tutorials could be like this!
200 Mbps – $39/month.
I analyzed some of the top selling tracks here out of curiosity and I noticed that a lot of the (especially newer) ones have an integrated loudness (LUFS EBU R128) of about -8, which I had thought was really loud. Some of the older top sellers have an INT LUFS of around -12 to -13, being quite a bit quieter.
All you see around the web is the broadcast standard of -23, but is there sort of an unofficial standard for mastering music measured in Integrated LUFS?
Authors, have you all switched from measuring in RMS to LUFS, or are you staying with the older methods?
Do you notice that for YouTube use, people want more compressed music, especially where there’s a voice-over? Or the opposite?