Impressive amounts guys! How can you make so many tracks without working with them fulltime? With a day job, I’d rather think how many months do I need to make one track
There was a very short period when I didn’t know that front page exposure is such a lousy way to promote. I tried to submit many tracks per month, but their quality was so poor, that after one year I’ve deleted half of them, and also a few of them were even rejected. The whole bunch of such tracks has given less benefit than one quality track that takes about a month or two to complete.
But I can spend only a few hours once or twice a week to create music, so this is a big limitation. This would change a lot if I could earn 25% of my income from AJ and reduce my day job hours to 75% of full employment.
Maybe apart of saying about number of tracks you could say how much time you spend making them?
Sounds much better in this version You may also like to add a referral to ‘Buy’ link on SoundCloud to get additional 30% of sales from newly registered customers. Good luck on sales!
Information about song usage is definitely a good idea. It will give two benefits – first, the author will be able to keep track on item usage, second – the buyer will no longer have excuse to use the music half-legally, by buying one license but using the track in multiple final products.
It’s clear that some buyers might not fill the information honestly, but at least, when author finds his track used somewhere, he can check if this usage has been reported. If it’s not, he can pursue a legal action.
If the usage of the track is directly connected to a URL, for example, a YouTube film, a link to this YT page may be provided. This makes easy to check for legitimate uses of the music.
One small detail bothers me, however. Art-of-Sound says something about licence duration. Is there really a time limit between item purchase and its actual use? I didn’t know about such thing. I’ve bought some AJ tracks just because I liked them, for the purpose of just listening to them, but I considered using them also in YouTube videos after a year or two – at the moment I didn’t event think about subject of these videos. If this is not allowed by a licence, I will just not be able to use them after such delay. But if it’s legitimate, I wonder if it could be possible in the proposed item use formular, to be able to specify the track use long time after buying it.
Obviously, if the information about track use could be specified later, it increases the risk that the buyer will never fill it. But on the other hand, it seems quite possible, that somebody buys the track before making his mind about the exact usage. If this is a YouTube video, it may even take time to create it – if the video is intended to be strictly syncronized to the audio, it might take some work to edit it this way, before uploading to YouTube. This is just a technical problem, but it must be dealt with, to make the item usage form working efficiently.
Maybe filling the usage information would be not required in a moment of purchase, but the licence might contain the requirement, that it must be filled when the final product is made publictly available, otherwise a legal action is about to begin against the publisher of the product. This would allow for adding this information later, but would enforce to fill it before publishing. Also, there might be a deal between Envato and YouTube, offering YT a webservice with item usage information, that might be used in YT copyright protection system.
This thread is definitely useful one. I’ve just bought my first ukulele today After some practice, I’ll try to record it with my old Shure 16A mic – it’s a small condenser mic with very bright, sometimes too sharp sound. Worked nice with acoustic guitars, I suppose it may work out great with uke.
I’d say if a track has no views, it means that the promotion for this track is issuficient. 0 sales with little views is not a problem of the track, because how could it be bought if nobody knows it exists?
If there are hundreds of views and still no sales, this might mean the track quality is the problem, but some tracks still can be reedited. If they can’t, it makes sense to delete them indeed.
But deleting tracks just because they have no sales is just artificial making the portfolio look good. Or not even that, because track with 1 or 2 sales look as bad as 0 sales – it definitely didn’t pay for its production cost.
Could you post the new version on SoundCloud? I think this might sound great if all these small technical issues were fixed.
This is a legitimate way to make money, and I’d be grateful to anybody who made a website promoting my tracks using his referral code. Such person surely would deserve that 30% of the sales. I was also considering making such kind of page, and when I get more traffic to my own website, I’ll probably put links to my favourite AJ tracks made by other authors, with my own referral code.
It has been explained in referral program information, that the referral earning occurs only in the case, when the visitor had no AJ cookie before. So if the visitior clicked on your referral first, and other person’s referral second, it’s you who gets the benefit. Unless the visitor has already visited AJ before clicking either of these links, in such case nobody gets referral bonus.
It sounds like it was made of loops, the looping stands out too much. The snares sound horribly flat, with no changes in velocity. The beat sounds too much compressed, it causes all other sounds to pulse. Some mainstream productions are often overcompressed this way, but here we’re not making the music for radio, so there is no point in fighting a loudness wars.
Take any successful track by ATB for example, and compare. You’ll hear what your production lacked. You were heading in a really nice direction, but the result was not proffesionally sounding yet.
And if you need to resort to the argument that there are many items with low quality, you’re answering the question yourself – your item quality was not that high. And the point is that the requirements went up a lot recently, so the low quality items are not longer acceptes like they used to be.
How many times did you listen to this track when polishing the mix up? It seems pretty monotonous just after a few listenings. It’s a good idea to listen to the track for several days, on different equipments and in different environments, trying to catch up any weaknesses to fix, before submitting the final version. It’s because the final stage of composing releases too much enthusiasm and causes the composer to miss too many flaws that become obvious after more repeatitive listening.
Have you ever got any more information when the track is hard rejected?
I think they always send this standard message in case of hard rejection – what’s the point of being more specific anyway? The author might try to fix the issues and resubmit the item, if there were any specifics, and this is exactly what hard rejection is not about.
I got little experience, because I had only 2 hard rejections so far, but can anybody confess to having a specific information if the rejection was permanent?
As for the track in question, you might post it on SoundCloud, maybe we could find a reason it was rejected.
Recently it has been said directly in the rules, that it is forbidden to buy your own items. But it is allowed to post YouTube films using watermarked preview with link to AudioJungle page in order to promote the item. So you can deal this way with your own projects.
Some time ago I wondered just as you, that I might want to use my items without watermark in some of my YouTube films, so I’d supposedly buy the licences for them. But the recent statement that it is strictly forbidden has ruled this option out.
All these limitations refer to being an exclusive author, so you just might opt out from being exclusive to avoid these problems.