|
THE SIMON COWELL SECTION / THE 'BRUTAL TRUTH FEEDBACK THREAD'. (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| G-Con |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
While this problem is easy to see in the MP forum, it stands to reason that the original intent was for people to provide honest feedback. I can remember a time when that forum seemed to be a lot more active and you did, sometimes, get honest feedback.
So let's hypothetically say that (a) I was wild about this idea myself and (b) I could convince Swamper to go for it - neither of which I can claim confidently right now - the question is, how would you prevent the exact same thing from happening to the "feedback" forum?
The same social contract is still implied; you review mine, I'll review yours. You give me a good/honest review, I'll give you a good/honest review. It's just human nature, it's how people think. The only way I know of to break out of this pattern is if the feedback system is completely anonymous and automated, which means it generally has to be simplified into something as basic as a thumbs-up or thumbs-down vote. This is how many Q&A sites work, but it's not entirely reliable for subjective discussions, and in any event, I think that's too drastic a change to implement here.
The location or title of the forum really doesn't matter. What matters is how people are incentivized to interact. What incentives are there for people to take significant amounts of their time to provide critical reviews of tracks (especially when criticism does not tend to be well-received)?
Do any of you have a way around these problems? |
I don't really have any answers as such but if I were to give feedback to someone's track in a "Brutal Honesty" thread, I would do so like this:
Firstly, let them know whether or not the genre of the track is one that I enjoy listening to (which puts my opinion in some sort of context).
If it is, then I would state quite simply:
1) If I enjoyed listening to it and genuinely would like to listen to it again and again. Maybe mention any specifics that I liked.
2) If I would buy it, given the opportunity (or if I was a DJ, would I want to include it in my sets)
If it wasn't a genre that I typically enjoy listening to, then I would still give an opinion on the track but the artist would understandably give less validity to my opinion.
I would avoid commenting TOO much on the technical aspects. When I listen to tracks in sets, albums, beatport, radio etc, I don't start breaking the track down into elements and use of FX to decide my opinion. I either like it or I don't.
It's all very good complimenting someones use of reverb and compression. Admiring the delay settings on that hi-hat and the punch in that bass line. But if when it comes down to it, the track itself just didn't grab me, then the production values don't mean .
This is roughly how I would review a track honestly. And I know that this is the kind of review I'd like to get on my tracks. |
|
|
| cryophonik |
One other potential pitfall with the Brutal Honesty forum IMO is this: I assume that a lot of people are like me in that they don't bother replying if they just don't like the song or it just isn't their cup of tea. That doesn't mean that it's not a good track or doesn't have commercial value - it just means that I don't care for it, so criticism would just be a personal preference. I actually listen to more songs than I respond to, but I tend to only respond to the ones that really grab my attention. That's partly because I do most of my listening during the day when I'm at work, so I don't have time to respond to each and every one. But, it's also because I don't follow Beatport and I really don't have a good idea of what sells and what doesn't. So, I find myself only bothering to reply when I hear someone that I really like, which is often from the same handful of producers.
I have had quite a few people PM me and ask me for criticism on a track, and I'm always happy to go the extra mile and point out both the strengths and weaknesses in a track when someone goes to the lengths of asking specifically for my advice. But, I always caveat it by mentioning that I'm not the best person to determine how marketable their track is. I think that because I post a lot (too much?) it leaves the impression that I know a lot about every aspect of EDM, but that's simply not the case. I'm sure that this applies to many of the regulars here. There are a few people here who really seem to know the marketing end of music, but I'm not one of them, so I tend to critique songs based on their musicality (very important to ME) and their technicality, but I try not to get too bogged down with nitpicky things (unless something really bothers me), and focus more on the overall mix. |
|
|
| Beatflux |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
While this problem is easy to see in the MP forum, it stands to reason that the original intent was for people to provide honest feedback. I can remember a time when that forum seemed to be a lot more active and you did, sometimes, get honest feedback.
So let's hypothetically say that (a) I was wild about this idea myself and (b) I could convince Swamper to go for it - neither of which I can claim confidently right now - the question is, how would you prevent the exact same thing from happening to the "feedback" forum?
The same social contract is still implied; you review mine, I'll review yours. You give me a good/honest review, I'll give you a good/honest review. It's just human nature, it's how people think. The only way I know of to break out of this pattern is if the feedback system is completely anonymous and automated, which means it generally has to be simplified into something as basic as a thumbs-up or thumbs-down vote. This is how many Q&A sites work, but it's not entirely reliable for subjective discussions, and in any event, I think that's too drastic a change to implement here.
The location or title of the forum really doesn't matter. What matters is how people are incentivized to interact. What incentives are there for people to take significant amounts of their time to provide critical reviews of tracks (especially when criticism does not tend to be well-received)?
Do any of you have a way around these problems?
|
If you split up the forums, the more "serious" forum would invalidate comments on the less serious forum and you would have people move over to the "serious" forum because people would feel like the comments would be more "sincere."
Probably one of the easiest ways to get better feedback to ask more precise questions when asking for feedback. Instead of asking a broad overarching question like, "Is it good?" You might want to ask how your track compares to whatever your had targeted in your mind.
Example questions:
Does this sound like song that could make Beatport House top 10?
I want my kick and bass to sound like wolfgang, does it sound similar?
I am going for a Electro-Tiesto meets modern ATB sound, did I nail it?
I worked on this percussion to sound like popular tech house, does it sound professionally done?
I want my percussion to sound like song X and my melodies to sound like producer X, does it sound similar?
When people have a certain sound to reference, it becomes much more of an objective experience rather than relying on someone's years of music listening and nuanced preferences of music to tell you how much they enjoyed the music. There's always a way to check the quality of the feedback: an A/B sound check. |
|
|
| cryophonik |
| quote: | Originally posted by Beatflux
Example questions:
Does this sound like song that could make Beatport House top 10?
I want my kick and bass to song like wolfgang, does it sound similar?
I am going for a Electro-Tiesto meets modern ATB sound, did I nail it?
I worked on this percussion to sound like popular tech house, does it sound professionally done?
I want my percussion to sound like song X and my melodies to sound like producer X, does it sound similar?
When people have a certain sound to reference, it becomes much more of an objective experience rather than relying on someone's years of music listening and nuanced preferences of music to tell you how much they enjoyed the music. There's always a way to check the quality of the feedback: an A/B sound check. |
Exactly! It's really up to the producer to help guide the critiques, if he/she is looking for specific input. And, it's also up to the reviewer to take the time to read the OP and understand what the OP is asking. Too many times, I've seen people ask for specific advice only to have it ignored by the majority of reviewers. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| I wish I had time to give a more detailed reply, but I just wanted to voice that I am for the status quo. I'll try and come up with a more in depth reply, but I don't believe I've ever shrunk from delivering honest critique. |
|
|
| Kysora |
| quote: | Originally posted by G-Con
I disagree. I do this purely as a hobby and have no intention of trying to become successful with it in the pro sense. BUT I want people to critic my tracks as they would any other tune. The idea that they will critique it in a way that takes into consideration my amateur status is patronising beyond belief. |
Yeah, me too. I'm not saying it's ideal, I'm just saying using the comparison to Beatport isn't a very fair one, because the comment "Hey, this is really good for a semi-serious hobbyist" doesn't translate well into "Hey, this is really good for a signed track being sold through a distributor". People have higher standards.
It's more of a bad thing in terms of reviewing tracks on Beatport and such than it is here; people generally review tracks here as they see them, whereas for tracks being sold their standards suddenly become much higher.
After thinking about it though I honestly don't think we need a "brutal honesty" section. I can go ahead and start reviewing tracks when I have the time and be as straightforward as possible but I honestly don't think we need to have an actual division of criticism to achieve what you guys seem to want. Hell, whenever I review tracks I point out as many flaws as I can, since that's generally what I listen for anyway. If more people want to step and do this I think it'd be perfectly manageable to do so in the forums already established for it. |
|
|
| G-Con |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kysora
Yeah, me too. I'm not saying it's ideal, I'm just saying using the comparison to Beatport isn't a very fair one, because the comment "Hey, this is really good for a semi-serious hobbyist" doesn't translate well into "Hey, this is really good for a signed track being sold through a distributor". People have higher standards.
It's more of a bad thing in terms of reviewing tracks on Beatport and such than it is here; people generally review tracks here as they see them, whereas for tracks being sold their standards suddenly become much higher.
After thinking about it though I honestly don't think we need a "brutal honesty" section. I can go ahead and start reviewing tracks when I have the time and be as straightforward as possible but I honestly don't think we need to have an actual division of criticism to achieve what you guys seem to want. Hell, whenever I review tracks I point out as many flaws as I can, since that's generally what I listen for anyway. If more people want to step and do this I think it'd be perfectly manageable to do so in the forums already established for it. |
I agree that we don't need a separate section for honest criticism but I do think that the kind of feedback many of us give in the MP section isn't honest enough. I'm know I'm repeating myself now but we all want to know if our tunes are genuinely good, not just decent for an amateur but as good as the pro's. And I'm not just referring to the production quality but the musicality of the track (far more important in my eyes)
If nothing else, maybe this thread will be the catalyst for many of us to re-consider how honest the feedback we give to others really is. Don't lower your standards just because its a tune by a fellow TA amateur, treat it as any other tune out there. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Beatflux
If you split up the forums, the more "serious" forum would invalidate comments on the less serious forum and you would have people move over to the "serious" forum because people would feel like the comments would be more "sincere." |
I'm still interpreting the proposal as:
Phase 1: Create a new sub-forum
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit! (Excellent detailed reviews!)
What's in phase 2? What is the mechanism that would make this effective? So far, nobody has addressed the issue of incentives, other than to say "that's what the forum says people should do, so that's what they'll do."
You yourself just listed a number of ways to get better feedback without the need for a special forum. Just specify the kind of feedback you want when you post the track instead of asking for general thoughts (which implies the desire for a favourable review).
If it's a specific question about a specific track element, it's fine to post here (but a sample demonstrating this element is better than an entire track). Otherwise, it belongs in the promotion forum. Maybe that forum just needs a name change, like "Promotion & Reviews" or even just "Reviews."
The real issue, though, isn't that reviewers don't give honest enough feedback. It's a combination of the fact that (a) there aren't enough reviewers in the first place (incentives!) and (b) people don't ask for the right kind of feedback, and often react negatively to it when given. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Wanted to respond to this as well:
| quote: | Originally posted by G-Con
I agree that we don't need a separate section for honest criticism but I do think that the kind of feedback many of us give in the MP section isn't honest enough. I'm know I'm repeating myself now but we all want to know if our tunes are genuinely good, not just decent for an amateur but as good as the pro's. And I'm not just referring to the production quality but the musicality of the track (far more important in my eyes) |
Thing is, a lot of pro tracks aren't very good. Even on many of the major labels. Standards and tastes vary significantly, and a really ty track can make it into distribution if the label dude happens to think it's catchy. Depending on who you ask, "really good for an amateur" could mean anything from "not release material" to "might make it out the door" to "better than most professionally-released tracks."
I also doubt that there are many reviewers here (or at the labels) who are even qualified to review the musicality of the track - that would require at least a passing knowledge of music theory - and even then, so many tracks being pumped out nowadays don't really have any tonal elements to speak of (or they're bland one-chord repetitions that it's impossible to really say anything definitive about).
Believe me, I share everybody's sentiment about the honesty and level of detail in reviews. The devil is always in the details, though. Writing the kind of review people seem to want is hard work, requires a decent body of knowledge and a good ear, and is generally a pretty thankless task. Ask yourself, honestly, how many tracks you personally would review this way if there were an infinite number of tracks to be reviewed. Once upon a time I can remember writing 3 or 4 such reviews a day in the promo forum - now, I think I'd find it hard to motivate myself to do more than one a week.
So, yes, the inability to get good, detailed reviews is an ongoing problem, but we can't blame the reviewers who are taking up their free time listening to other people's crap and trying to come up with the right words to describe it. I think that the best solution, right now at least, is just to set an example - write the kinds of reviews you would want to receive, and lots of them. |
|
|
| G-Con |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Wanted to respond to this as well:
Thing is, a lot of pro tracks aren't very good. Even on many of the major labels. Standards and tastes vary significantly, and a really ty track can make it into distribution if the label dude happens to think it's catchy. Depending on who you ask, "really good for an amateur" could mean anything from "not release material" to "might make it out the door" to "better than most professionally-released tracks."
I also doubt that there are many reviewers here (or at the labels) who are even qualified to review the musicality of the track - that would require at least a passing knowledge of music theory - and even then, so many tracks being pumped out nowadays don't really have any tonal elements to speak of (or they're bland one-chord repetitions that it's impossible to really say anything definitive about).
Believe me, I share everybody's sentiment about the honesty and level of detail in reviews. The devil is always in the details, though. Writing the kind of review people seem to want is hard work, requires a decent body of knowledge and a good ear, and is generally a pretty thankless task. Ask yourself, honestly, how many tracks you personally would review this way if there were an infinite number of tracks to be reviewed. Once upon a time I can remember writing 3 or 4 such reviews a day in the promo forum - now, I think I'd find it hard to motivate myself to do more than one a week.
So, yes, the inability to get good, detailed reviews is an ongoing problem, but we can't blame the reviewers who are taking up their free time listening to other people's crap and trying to come up with the right words to describe it. I think that the best solution, right now at least, is just to set an example - write the kinds of reviews you would want to receive, and lots of them. |
Ok, firstly when I said musicality, I may have used the wrong word. What I meant was just to review the track itself, not the production quality or technical aspects.
You are right, plenty of pro tracks are crap. But when I say pro, all I really mean are good tracks that a number of people buy and enjoy listening to, that established DJ's play in their sets (if its a dance track of course). Yes technically a pro track is one that has been signed and people have to pay for, but I think we al know that when we talk about pro tracks, we're talking about decent pro tracks that many people actually want to listen to.
In regards to detailed reviews, this is not really what I am talking about.
If someone reviewed my track and said, "this is hot, as good as my current favourite artists and I would buy this in a second"
That is a one sentence review and tells me all I need to know.
Likewise they could say "technically nothing was majorly wrong but compared to tunes that I buy and listen to on a daily basis, this was boring and didn't grab me"
Again, a very short but clearly honest review.
When we review the production quality, we can go very detailed if we want into specific areas that could be improved. But when it comes to stating whether or not we honestly like the tune, a few words are all that is necessary.
Problem is, as it stands, in the MP section, we all apparently really like each others tunes even though I suspect that most of us never give them a second listen after giving feedback (with few exceptions). So why do we say they are good?
You are right though that as the artist, we need to clearly state what kind of feedback we are after. I always ask for honest feedback but I think from now I will ask
1) Do you like this enough that you are going to play it several more times at least?
2) Would you buy this, given the opportunity? |
|
|
| Richard Butler |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
(b) people don't ask for the right kind of feedback, and often react negatively to it when given.
[/COLOR][/FONT] |
There's the point.
Some people do not enjoy brutaly honest undilluted feedback hence why a separate simon cowell sub 'quaranitne' area would serve a need.
I like the ideas floated above where people would state thier preferred styles at outset so as the feedback can be weighted in the mind of the recipient.
I love the anonymous feedback idea mentioned too.
Anyway, this isn't life and death, if we trial it then great, if not, then I'll just ask for brutal feedback in future:crazy: |
|
|
| Beatflux |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
I'm still interpreting the proposal as:
Phase 1: Create a new sub-forum
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit! (Excellent detailed reviews!)
What's in phase 2? What is the mechanism that would make this effective? So far, nobody has addressed the issue of incentives, other than to say "that's what the forum says people should do, so that's what they'll do."
You yourself just listed a number of ways to get better feedback without the need for a special forum. Just specify the kind of feedback you want when you post the track instead of asking for general thoughts (which implies the desire for a favourable review).
If it's a specific question about a specific track element, it's fine to post here (but a sample demonstrating this element is better than an entire track). Otherwise, it belongs in the promotion forum. Maybe that forum just needs a name change, like "Promotion & Reviews" or even just "Reviews."
The real issue, though, isn't that reviewers don't give honest enough feedback. It's a combination of the fact that (a) there aren't enough reviewers in the first place (incentives!) and (b) people don't ask for the right kind of feedback, and often react negatively to it when given. |
Maybe get rid of the "Promotion" title all together? How many people actually go to the section to check out the latest and greatest? Or does everyone just hit up Beatport?
There is a "New Release Section" on the forums, and the overlap is just contributing to more clutter on the forums.
Maybe change the name to "Track Critique" or something different.
People are pretty flaky on reviews, maybe we could do a weekly review of a track each week that will encourage the whole production community to participate, rather than just stringing something out in the promotion forums hoping that enough people bite. That way one deserving person gets his track reviewed by a whole lot of people, but people also learn from other people's comments. |
|
|
|
|
