Hollywood Strings really is quite nice. The Diamond edition is a little spending, but their gold edition is quite affordable.
I’ve also hear really great things about cinematic strings, but I don’t have a lot of experience with them.
What is a track gets bought before it reaches the imminent hard rejection? Also, this would lead to some sort of explicit elitism/oligarchy which wouldn’t be too welcoming or fair…
But hey, some other ideas are rather good, like the technical rejection… although we zip our submissions, I don’t know how that works… The song is still audible, so the reviewer can decide if it is to be approved and soft reject it asking for a specific change in the format. Or he can just hard reject it if the song is not suitable for the marketplace. Honestly, I have no idea about how this works.
The bottom line is that the idea of trusted authors having a badge sounds good while the idea of trusted authors having queue jump abilities not so much.Cheers!
If a track gets bought, it gets bought. There’s no downside there—the author and AJ made money on it, which means that its clearly “commercially viable” music. If AJ wants to remove it from the site, they simply do so. If that client wants to come back and buy it again, it will no longer be available. Presumably this is already possible since I’m sure AJ reserves the right to remove our tracks from the site at any time.
Heck—authors can remove their tracks, which really brings up this same issue. The whole point of this is obviously that AJ wouldn’t have to remove pieces from “verified” authors because those authors have proven that they are exceedingly unlikely to upload a low-quality track.
Frankly, really great authors deserve to get a jump in the review queue. I have no problem with Tim McMorris or Pink Zebra “getting ahead of me” insofar as getting stuff posted on AJ is concerned, because they clearly produce more commercially viable and high-quality stuff than I do. As for the oligarchy… I guess I have to politely disagree. Obviously there are already a certain clique of successful authors already, so I don’t see how this would really affect that in any meaningful way.
But I could be wrong!
Anyway, thanks for the thoughts. Nice to see some constructive criticism of the idea.
It seems to me that there are 2 competing interests at play here—both of them legitimate:
1. Reviewing on AJ often takes far too long, and there’s really nothing Envato can do about it. They can only hire so many reviewers, and, as the site gets popular, they’re only going to be seeing more submissions.
2. Reviewing serves an important function at AJ, namely, keeping the marketplace quality high and ensuring that we all benefit from a library that’s recognized as one of the best in the industry.
I think there’s a way to ensure that (2) continues to be an important part of the AJ experience while at once solving the problem of (1):
After a certain number of submissions, I think authors should be given the chance to have tracks approved immediately on a prohibitionary basis. Think “approval, subject to review”. In this way, authors that have shown that they are able to consistently produce high-quality tracks will be spared the endless, 7+ day wait, but still have their pieces reviewed. If they make a mistake and submit something that wouldn’t normally be approved, it gets taken down. Other authors (who are new or have only submitted a few high-quality pieces) will have to endure the wait.
A couple of notes are important here, as I think there are some important changes that need to be made to the review process in order to make this a reality:
1) There should be a programmatic rejection of all tracks that don’t meet file type standards. If you submit (for example) a 48khz, 24-bit WAV/AIFF file, there’s no reason it should ever reach a human reviewer. It should not even be possible to submit a file that violates the site policies like this. Of the rejections I’ve received, probably 75% come from a simple error like this—an error that’s easy to make considering the fact that everywhere else I submit music requires higher quality files than AudioJungle. Simply avoiding the need for human reviewers to check this kind of mistake should ensure that even seasoned authors don’t upload files that fail to meet AJ’s filetype standards.
2) The threshold for being a “premium author” (one who doesn’t have to have things reviewed immediately before they go live on AJ) should be pretty high. I’d initially suggest that the author submit 25+ files that meet AJ’s quality standard before they be given the honor of submission with prohibitionary review.
I think this kind of approach could at once ensure that AJ is still a quality library while addressing the fact that uploading here takes a somewhat unreasonable amount of time.
Recently purchased East/West’s CCC2 Pro collection which comes on a screaming USB3 drive from Buffalo—the performance on the external USB3 drive is so far much superior to the internal 7200 drive I’ve got in my machine. Highly recommended:http://www.buffalotech.com/products/desktop-hard-drives/drivestation/drivestation-ddr
I’m still working on a few tracks using this library (that might make it to AJ), but having recently purchased this library, let me say that it is leaps and bounds ahead of the competition. (I say this as a typical booster of 8Dio’s fantastic stuff and Spitfire’s excellent selection).
I assumed that 48-Khz mp3’s were okay, as I almost always submit them. (Also a Logic user here).
The current system is the ONLY way that it makes sense for composers to submit to AJ. I have work that was created outside of AJ for film/TV that needs to be PRO registered, and thus I have to be a member of a non-exclusive PRO.
If AJ didn’t allow authors to be members of non-exclusive PRO’s, they would see a mass exodus of composers from the site, because that simply doesn’t make sense for a great many of us.
(I say this as an author/composer who loves AJ and plans to continue submitting)
Sounds good. If I had to critique, what I’d suggest is a melody that is less reliant on longer notes, but has a bit more dynamism. You’ve got a nice, very sellable harmony, but everything is moving together in big, block chords instead of transitioning smoothly with nice, attractive voice-leading.
This is a nice resource on voice-leading through music history, and I think some of the techniques there could be paired with a stronger melody, and you’d end up with a really special track.
You’ve clearly got a great ear (the mix is really nice too, by the by), but I think just a bit more attention to a few little details could take this from something fairly run-of-the-mill to a really beautiful and interesting track.
I second the Wavesfactory recommendation. Really nice sound, and the sample triggering scheme is very intuitive (a lot of strumming instrument samples are essentially just loops, but Wavesfactory’s allow you more flexibility, meaning that you’re not locked into preset strumming patterns).
Be sure to pick up their picked uke samples too—equally excellent.
I listen to a lot of successful tracks and it seems about 30% fade out versus a “bada bing” type ending. Your thoughts? I’ve been working on a new release for a few days now and the ending is killing me. Nothing sounds right to me other than a smooth 3-5 second fadeout.
You’ll find that you get soft-rejected for fade-out endings. When I first started here I have roughly 50% of my tracks soft-rejected for this reason—and AJ was right to do so. Its easy to add a fade out to an existing track, but almost impossible to create a new ending that makes sense with nothing but other stock to choose from.