1. Hmm, this doesn’t sound that bad. Let’s finish it.
2. Oh yeah, it’s great. Let’s just fix stuff and make it sound better.
3. Wow, I can’t believe I wrote that. It’s better than my previous track! (play count ~100)
(1 month later): 4. Ugh. Still not that bad but… I don’t wanna listen to that.
(2 months later):
5. I can’t believe I thought that stuff sounded good
(3 months later): 6. (empty recycle bin)
This is the first item I’ve made exclusively for this market (and for any stock market). I made it in one day, then it was rejected because it didn’t meet the criteria. I then spent about one week improving it and it was finally approved. I was so sick of the tune that I decided to forget it for a while and then come back to see what it sounds like after I nearly forgot it.
Now I’m really surprised that it was approved in the first place. It sounds very amateurish; so much, in fact, that I really want to delete it. I even feel slightly embarrassed listening to it. But before I do, I’d like to ask you a few questions:
I’m obviously unable to objectively determine how much it’s worth. I really hate that track. What would you improve? To me, the whole thing is rather incoherent, badly mixed and composed, and has really glaring errors.
Here’s the link:http://audiojungle.net/item/happy-times-will-come/1043492
Yesterday at one point I checked all the items in the New Item category and not a single one sold. I dismissed that because it was Sunday. I did the same today and only one track has one sale (Ukulele Clap Ad by RussellBellMusic).
Perhaps the sample still is too small to reach conclusions, but are you people sure that items receive that much exposure there? Or is it just the fact that your avatar is on the main page?
Whistling is a very hard thing to ignore. Actually, it easily grabs attention and it’s (for me at least) moderately annoying. Same goes with clapping and ukulele. You’ll notice that they all produce sound in high register which naturally imposes itself as acoustic foreground in almost all situations, without having to be loud. Imagine a normal acoustic guitar instead of ukulele. Easier to ignore, I bet.
I usually have TV turned on in the background so I can catch the news. When I hear commercials with that triad, I’m irked. They are the reason I always have the remote control nearby.
I believe your friend is correct. Too much elaboration and your commercial will not be intrusive as much as simple, sugary, quasispontaneous music which grabs most people’s attention regardless of musical taste. Tempo is also very important (at least presto), and simple major progression, preferably I V vi IV goes without saying.
I can hear the whole track. Try reloading the page.
Great track, too.
I recommend that you add “in G Major, op. 2044, no. 22” to make it sound more appealing to the Upper West Side audience
But we’re going off topic, folks.
There are many possible ways to give exposure to deserving items, none of which would satisfy absolutely everyone.
All involved in this discussion so far are more-less established authors, 3 with brown paws, 3 with red paws, 1 black and 1 silver paw. I’m a pawless new author who will likely be on the lower end of quality offered on the marketplace for a while, since my first tracks have been rejected so far, do take what I say with a grain of salt, just as I take absolutely everyone’s behaviour when money is involved. Business is, after all, business; we can’t all win.
If I understand correctly, the complaint seems to be that it is unfair for all items, regardless of quality, to have indiscriminate exposure inside the “New Item” box. Because of this, you say, “Envato is losing money from potentially good-selling items because they are moved off too fast” [RainbowWings, post 11]. This is based on the fact that your items are sold when inside the New Item page and they stop being sold after they are moved out [RainbowWings, post 1].
Your idea is to impose certain quality standards upon the New Item category in order for only “quality items” to be promoted, for example, by reviewer’s rating. You say this would increase their sales and everyone would profit.
Problem with this solution is the criteria which should be used. What do you consider to be better quality? You say “idea, sound quality”. Sound quality criteria are already imposed on everyone who wants to upload, and as for “idea”, this is far too vague. Could you expand on that, please?
I do agree that with the inflation of uploaded tracks, higher criteria must be imposed. But rather than approving of items only to not let them be seen in New Items category, I think they must be imposed within the reviewing process. Whether something is spam or not is also difficult to determine. Is it too similar to other tracks by the author? Or other authors? Does it lack substance? For example, 12 tracks featuring slightly different interpretations of the I-V-vi-IV progression? And the million dollar question – will it sell or not?
My idea would be to start with something like an added “Daily Featured Items” in which reviewers, who are already under strain listening to lots and lots of tracks, would put let’s say 4 tracks a day, preferably from different categories, which simply caught their ear, somehow stood up from among the crowd.
More elaborate ideas would take additional work and the solution is far from simple, so this discussion is great and all points made so far seem helpful.
As Urbazon said, those added attributes are redundant. They are an addition to the title, so they aren’t a part of it even if you put them in. Tags, categories and item description seem enough to me. Who knows what the library would look like if everyone put descriptions into titles.
If you really want to have it in your title, you can do something generic like “Cinematic Trailer no. 5” or “Weather News Ident 2”.
Another thing is, if you expect from stock music the same thing you expect from your favourite band, songwriter or composer, you’ll probably be disappointed. Stock music is usually made for very practical purposes. That would be like comparing Andy Warhol or Rembrandt and company logos or living room wallpapers and saying the latter are crap. They’re not, they’re a different category, perhaps stock music is something which could be called ‘musical design’.
Wow, that’s a lot of rambling, sorry