Anthemic Hip-Hop

"I like the part starting at 0:59 best! Really good. This and the part after, that's it. And maybe a deeper, more rhythmic bass."

Glad that you enjoyed at least part of it. Thanks. I think the bass is deep enough, but I agree there could be more happening there. The problem is that this is meant to be a cue, IOW music that acts subliminally. It's supposed to set a mood without drawing attention to itself. That's a fine line, and I'm generally not sure at what point I might inadvertently cross it. (And anyway, how does subliminal music at the same time qualify as anthemic?)  If I do cross it, the music libraries that typically solicit instrumental music via Taxi won't want it, and anyway Taxi will reject it before a library even gets a chance to audition it.

"The keyboard phrase in the beginning dominantes for too long. After eight bars I felt I've heard it all and wanted to click elsewhere. That's a pity because, you know, 0:59 really starts it all. Variations of 0:59 could be going on for some time without getting old."

I agree that the part you referenced could be shorter in duration, but if this track does get accepted by a library, and if a music editor wants to use it, they will use only a few seconds, up to maybe 20 seconds. So the viewer might not even hear that "too long" part. The editor might even edit together various snippets in a different order.

"The keyboard is more like a 4-bar chorus loop. I would use it more sparsely. Its ballad-ish feel also smoothes out the rhythm. I like the last variation of it best (with stops and pulls in the rhythm)."

A perfectly valid opinion, although mine is different. As they say, beauty is in the eye (ear) of the beholder.

"Hip Hop is minimalist. Very few elements with lots of breathable space in between (for the vocals), mostly filled with effects and delays. The parts currently feel "at maximum" most of the time. I sense that you have some build-up going on, but it's too subtle, IMHO. Barely noticeable when listening for the first time."

I have yet to master the art of minimalism (or any art, really), and I agree that I need to learn how to back off the "at maximum" thing. There is indeed a buildup in this piece, but then again, if the listener doesn't sense the buildup, then for him/her that supposed buildup doesn't exist. The main theme runs from bar 9 through bar 16. In Synfire, I copied this main theme to bars 1-8, and then used the mute tool to strip it down so the theme would seem to build as the piece progresses. (I probably made other changes to this part, but I can't recall them at the moment.) I also added a variation of the theme starting at bar 17...I copied it to a different instrument, slowed it down to half tempo, and had it sounded by a bright synth patch in a higher register.  To my ears it works, and I get that sense of forward motion called for in the listing, partly due to the interplay of these two parts.

"I would use thinned-out variations of the phrases to arrange build-up, climax, collapse and such. Attention span is short. There's plenty room even in 1:50 to do a lot of things."

All good suggestions, although again there's the concern that this particular music is not necessarily meant to draw anyone's attention. This always seemed to me to be a paradox. 

"I'm struggling with this all the time! The details I'm tinkering with while composing, nobody else seems to notice. I think a better strategy might be to be radical with in-the-face contrast first and then only smooth out what still feels too much the next day ;-) I will definitely try that next time."

Misery loves company. Lately I've been setting my "finished" music aside for several days, and then coming back to it with fresh ears. I invariably make changes at that point.

"And another painful experience I want to share, as we are at it, is that once you add a dense keyboard phrase you fell in love with (piano or otherwise), it dominates everything. Unless you are composing for piano, it takes up all the oxygen."

I played guitar in several local bands over the years. If there was another guitar player, in rehearsals we'd decide how best to stay out of each other's way, and it was almost always fairly easy. But if there was one guitar (me) and a keyboard player, it was far more difficult. The piano often did, as you wrote, dominate. If playing a rhythm part, I often had to just try to play in what little space the piano left for me. I generally enjoyed both the challenge and the freedom of being the only guitar player in a band, but trying to make my rhythm parts mesh with the piano could be vexing.

"Just random musings to provide some feedback."

Much appreciated.

"That "main example" though in that video, isn't it just a break beats drum pattern (mostly)?"

A fair assessment. I really don't know what to make of that example. If I were the Taxi screener tasked with auditioning the various tracks submitted in response to this listing, and one of them was that example, I would reject it. It doesn't sound anthemic, bright, bouncy, or really at all like what the listing called for. Yet both the example and the text of the listing came from the same source, namely a music library seeking a certain style of music. Oh well, that's the music business.

Why so humble. If you got a part that works, mission accomplished. The rest is editing. Also it's just me. Others feel completely different.

Showing one's music to others can be emotionally taxing, because individuals experience it so extremely differently. On the other hand, if you keep your music only to yourself, how are your skills supposed to evolve.

(Hey, I finally figured out how to quote other people's comments.)

I consciously practice humility, because if I don't I risk becoming arrogant, and then I'll think I know it all and I'll never learn anything.

I long ago learned how to handle criticism of all sorts, and even rejection.  (And yes, I seek the opinions of others because I want to hear a different perspective.) It's all in a day's work for a creative person. I have a friend over in Germany who finished writing a novel and has started shopping it around, only to meet with a wall of rejection. That's the way it is in every creative endeavor.

I'm 70 years old, and retired. I'm not out to set the world on fire, and I don't need to make money from my music. But I do crave validation as a music producer, which is why I'm once again trying to write for Taxi listings and get my music on TV shows.

Years ago I had a cue accepted by a library via Taxi, for a science-based TV series. The owner of the library then contacted me and asked that I write ten more like that one. This was his way of seeing if I was up to the task, but I was working steadily as a videographer at the time, and this request was simply overwhelming. Then I googled him and found a YouTube video in which he said he did not like to work with people who had day jobs (which I could understand, given my own situation). So I let the opportunity pass. Nowadays, with fewer demands on my time, better skills, better equipment, and Synfire...I'd be more inclined to give it a shot.

I also had a cue used in a Toyota commercial. Strictly speaking it wasn't a commercial, since it aired on PBS, and "They don't run commercials, donchaknow." Don't tell anyone, but...it was a commercial. But the production company neglected to file cue sheets, so other than a small up-front licensing fee, I got screwed out of payment for that cue. It's a situation I'm sure many have encountered.

they will use only a few seconds, up to maybe 20 seconds

That's why I suggested 0:59 should come earlier.

I think you're missing my point. The music editor for the TV show will have the option to edit exactly at the point where the B-section comes in, omitting everything prior to it. I purposely left an edit point there...the B-section doesn't start right on the downbeat, but just slightly after that. This gives the editor a tiny bit of space in which to make a seamless edit. (But I think I might go back and carve that out a bit more.)

@juergen:

My first impression upon listening was also: Oh, that's nice. But it itches in the fingers for further editing. Shorten the intro, put the main theme (from 00:59) at the beginning for a few seconds to introduce it, introduce some variation after the middle section, for example a synth lead or some voice samples from a sample pack, etc. 

Thanks for your kind review, and for taking the time to comment.

But I consider the part starting circa 00:59 to be the B-section, providing contrast to the main theme, which starts in earnest at bar 9. Bars 1 thru 8 are a buildup to the main theme; bars 9 thru 16 are the main theme; bars 17 thru 24 expand on the main theme via the addition of a counterpoint theme. 

Also, the B-section is my attempt to add the electro feel suggested in the listing. At the same time I added hi-hats for a bit of Trap flavor (also suggested in the listing), using Stylus RMX (a fantastic drum program). It has a feature called Time Designer, which allows the user to drag and drop a MIDI file and thus cause the various parts in Stylus RMX to sync to that MIDI file. (By sync, I mean sync to the FEEL...the groove... of the MIDI file.) So I dropped in the drum MIDI, and from then every Stylus RMX hi-hat part I auditioned was synced up to the groove of my project. 

Stylus RMX Video Tutorials: Time Designer on Vimeo

I also brought the drum MIDI into Synfire by importing the MIDI file as static pitches. Then I dropped this onto the Rhythm parameter of various parts to make them lock to the drums. I'm pretty sure you mentioned on another thread that this could be done on the container level, but I didn't think of it at the time. (Oops, I think it was Ruchir who made that suggestion, but I can't find the thread at the moment to confirm this.)

I would never add an obvious stand-out lead part to a cue. Automatic rejection. And I'm averse to adding voices to a cue that's supposed to work under dialog, especially if they are hanging out in the same frequency as the dialog. 

Well then, okay. But the Taxi listing doesn't sound directly like the music shouldn't attract attention, does it? "...bursting with tons of positive, emotionally upbeat, and uplifting energy...Catchy motifs, engaging rhythms, and slick arrangements with plenty of dynamics, forward motion, layers, and interest are all needed for this request..."

Yup. It's a conundrum. But I wrote with the listing in mind at all times, and if it's therefore deemed not suitable for use as a cue, I'll chalk it up to experience and maybe find another use for the track. Maybe I'll even edit it further. :)

Producing music for someone else's taste doesn't work anyway.

I generally have difficulty saying today I'm going to write in a specific genre. I go where my ears and the technology take me. In this instance I did write to spec, but that's unusual for me.

But I always write to my own taste, which I consider unavoidable. My hope is that my own taste might also appeal to others.

Thanks again.

A couple of clarifications (at the risk of getting lost in minutiae):

The edit point in this case works only in one direction. If a music supervisor wants to use the music prior to the edit point (the theme section), their editor can make a cut at 00:58.20, and do a very fast fade starting a fraction of a second earlier. It will be a clean ending. But there's too much hanging over from the theme section to start using what comes just after that (the B-Section) directly from there. The previous tones will still be ringing out. Instead, if they want to use only the B-Section, they can use 4 or 8 bars starting at bar 53, and loop it as many times as they want. I tried looping this in Cubase, and it works fine.

Anyway, it seems like a small point, but little things like that can really affect whether or not music makes it into a TV show. If they can't edit it to fit their needs, they'll use something else.

@Andre: You said the bass wasn't deep enough, and I said I thought it was. But I've since opened the project and saw that the bass was a blend of two different bass tones, and I had inadvertently set the fader for deeper tone too low. So you were right...GOOD EARS!