Review Criteria

[jimtyrrell]

Since we're putting mp3s of original, hastily-written material on the web, we're all faced with satisfying (to some degree) these three elements:

Composition
Performance
Production

A songwriter may focus on composition, and not really concern him/herself as much with the finer aspects of performance and/or production, but the truth is, they're all part of the final package.
I was about to suggest that it might be a good idea to review these elements of a song individually, giving each weight according to your own tastes. But then I realized that this is exactly how Josh Woodward has done his reviews since before I came along. It only took me a year to figure out how much sense that makes.

[thehipcola]

I agree with all of that...I even think at some point I had decided to use that same format, and promptly never did. But now I will. (again...)

[j$]

A great song will shine through shoddy production.

I give you two counterexamples: The Books and Aphex Twin. Without top-notch production, much of their brilliant songwriting would be heard only in their brilliant heads..

Actually, I don't know the Books that well and I debate whether all of the Aphex Twin's stuff is 'well-produced' within the terms I take you to be implying.

I strongly believe that even if the Aphex Twin couldn't produce for toffee, the songwriting would still be brilliant, and I could enjoy his songs for that. I love Throbbing Gristle for instance.

But as I already said stellar production such as his 'adds another dimension' .... while bearing in mind "the worse the production the harder it usually is to appreciate/notice those interesting and imaginative parts .... " which is pretty much what you are saying, right?

Hey does no-one read past the first line of my posts any more?

Also an example closer to home - HNI:Dan's production on his most recent stuff (the Stick Figures album) is brilliant and unique. Lo-fi by most definitions, but to improve the production would destroy the mood ...

[erik]

15-16, could you point out where I discounted the value of songwriting? I'm interested to see what part of my post gave you that idea...because it wasn't my intention to do that. My larger point is that production and songwriting are inextricably linked.

Honestly, your entire last two posts read like songwriting matters not at all if you don't spend time on the production. Like

I'm not buying all this esoteric garble that a "gem" song is always gonna shine through crappy production, as if "good" songs are some kind of constant in the universe. Faggetaboutit. NO way.

Which is fine. I'm just casting a voice into the fray that I think is underrepresented here, which is that songwriting matters, and that it is something different from production. For every person who isn't good at (or doesn't care about) production values, there are 50 who aren't good at (or don't care about) writing something that is catchy, or memorable, or timeless, or important, or cool, or original or unique, and while this probably doesn't bother most people, there are people like me who think that these people are doing as much of a disservice to their music as you think people with poor production values are doing to theirs.

[Leaf]

I always try to write stuff that is catchy, or memorable, or whatever, and I suspect most musicans do. It's not that tough to succeed in a way where the artist feels it's working, it's entirely another thing to have that effect on others, especially strangers.

But, telling a great story IS mangled by poor production values, simply because it's a part of the over-all language. It doesn't mean there isn't a great story to be told, or that it isn't present. It would be like writing a Shakspearian sonnet on a paper napkin with a permenant marker. As the ink bleeds together, it get's harder to discern the words, making the reading process difficult and plodding. So to, is poor production, like it or not.


(And this has nothing to do with reviewing however.)


If you can make out the "words" on the napkin, great! The artist's message has gotten through to you, you feel the effect (maybe even the intended effect if the artist is lucky!) IF not, the whole thing suffers.
When I review, I simply go off my first impressions of the tune. If I want to listen again , I do. I don't worry anymore about "consistency" from review to review, I just comment on how this particular work made me feel at the moment I was listening. Thus, one drum machine song might make me shrivel, while another sounds perfect. A punk-pop tune makes me gag at it's geericism, while another has me rocking out. Cause that's how music works for me... a moment to moment experience.

[erik]

I always try to write stuff that is catchy, or memorable, or whatever, and I suspect most musicans do. It's not that tough to succeed in a way where the artist feels it's working, it's entirely another thing to have that effect on others, especially strangers.

But, telling a great story IS mangled by poor production values, simply because it's a part of the over-all language. It doesn't mean there isn't a great story to be told, or that it isn't present. It would be like writing a Shakspearian sonnet on a paper napkin with a permenant marker. As the ink bleeds together, it get's harder to discern the words, making the reading process difficult and plodding. So to, is poor production, like it or not.

Trying to do something well, and thinking that you have succeeded at it matters not at all. Every song that I've sent in to songfight, I have been satisfied with the production values. Just because someone thinks they've done a good job at something doesn't mean that they have.

To talk in such extremes about production really skews the conversation, because most everyone would agree that something that is illegible is unuseful as a means of communication. If you can't read it, then you can't extract the information out of it. I haven't heard any song on songfight which was so badly recorded that I couldn't tell what chords or what words were being spoken. If the production is that bad, of course it makes the song impossible to enjoy. But what some folks take issue with is more akin to Shakepeare's complete works written with a pencil on college-ruled paper. There's nothing wrong with it, and it's legible, but it doesn't feel important because it wasn't sent to a printer and bound in book form.

Again, which is fine, but not everyone agrees, like it or not, that ho-hum-average-sounding recordings are that detrimental to enjoying music. At the end of the day, however, I would much rather have a cocktail napkin signed by Shakespeare than a transcript of the latest Uwe Boll movie in calligraphy on the finest goldleaf.

[thehipcola]

Honestly, your entire last two posts read like songwriting matters not at all if you don't spend time on the production.

honestly, i rarely understand the filter you read through. your inferences are rarely the same as my intended message.

...nevermind. You tire me Erik.

My apologies to anyone who feels I discounted songwriting like Erik does. That's not the idea I was trying to get across.

[Leaf]

I always try to write stuff that is catchy, or memorable, or whatever, and I suspect most musicans do. It's not that tough to succeed in a way where the artist feels it's working, it's entirely another thing to have that effect on others, especially strangers.

Trying to do something well, and thinking that you have succeeded at it matters not at all. Every song that I've sent in to songfight, I have been satisfied with the production values. Just because someone thinks they've done a good job at something doesn't mean that they have.

Seems like we're saying the exact same thing there....so I'm confused by your comment...are you saying, "yeah, me too", or did you somehow misundertand me? From what I read above, between the two of us, it's the same idea.

I would much rather have a cocktail napkin signed by Shakespeare than a transcript of the latest Uwe Boll movie in calligraphy on the finest goldleaf.

Me too!

As far as "extreme" goes, my analogy is to demontrate that at some point in time, production and material issues affect my impression of the tune. There are times when it doesn't. In the case of your material, I didn't notice how wicked 12 monkies was, until I covered it. The last songfight of yours that I heard ...damn name is lost on me.. but anyway, I was knocked out because the production seems so much greater than before, enhancing your song, and allowing the material to shine through.

PErsonally, I have no absolute rules on how I listen or review a tune... things that matter in one song, may not in another. Sometimes, production issues seem paramount, sometimes, they seem completely irrelevant. So, I just review on what I'm feeling as I listen.

This may be why I enjoy Wrekdom at home (no pun-like statement intended folks... but ...) while when I listen at work, sometimes it's too much. Or why I'll let go of the use of drum loops and machines and all that on one artist's cut, yet it will totally annoy me on another. Or why sometimes I like chocolate milk, sometimes I like apple juice.

[erik]

Honestly, your entire last two posts read like songwriting matters not at all if you don't spend time on the production.

honestly, i rarely understand the filter you read through. your inferences are rarely the same as my intended message.

...nevermind. You tire me Erik.

My apologies to anyone who feels I discounted songwriting like Erik does. That's not the idea I was trying to get across.

I'm discussing things on a messageboard without being insulting. I'm telling you what you sound like to me, and when asked, gave specific answers to specific questions. I quoted back to you a specific passage which says that there is no such as a good song. If you find all this to be tiring, then don't ask me to elaborate and don't read my posts.

[erik]

Seems like we're saying the exact same thing there....so I'm confused by your comment...are you saying, "yeah, me too", or did you somehow misundertand me? From what I read above, between the two of us, it's the same idea.

No, I understood you, I was just drawing a parallel between the general umbrella of "production" and the general idea of "songwriting" inasmuch as while there are many people who think along the lines of "If this was better produced, I would like it better" there is at least one person (me) who thinks along the lines of "If this was better written, I would like this better", and the likelihood that either of these two opinions will be formulated has nothing to do with whether the person <i>thinks</i> they produced the song well enough, or whether the they <i>think</i> they wrote the song well enough.

[thehipcola]

I'm discussing things on a messageboard without being insulting. I'm telling you what you sound like to me, and when asked, gave specific answers to specific questions. I quoted back to you a specific passage which says that there is no such as a good song. If you find all this to be tiring, then don't ask me to elaborate and don't read my posts.

Your right Erik. To be fair (and accurate) I did not say there was no such thing as a good song. There's that filter again. Your posting style and tone generally gets under my skin. That's not an insult. It's a fact. I'll take your advice and stop reading your posts starting now. Again, my apologies to everyone else for the past few posts..should have been pm's. I'll try to improve that.

[Leaf]

So we're saying the same thing.


I've had times where I thought what I did totally rocked, or worked, or whatever, and yet that doesn't have the deisred effect upon the listener. They forumlate their own opinion based on their own criteria.


Seems like the same concept, but in different words.


Moving on, sometimes I like to make the reviewing process into a silly little game. Like grading on arbritary factors like quantities of fruit. Just for fun. I liked the playoff format, but I don't feel so inspired to go that route right now... grrr millionaire hockeybitches.

I also find that consistent reviewing styles, like say Mr. Woodwards, get on me after a while, because I'm never so sure that the content or perspective is consistent, just the style.

Ya know, I thinkt the only good answer to the original question is simply to do them. Do the reviews, on whatever criteria you want, but do them. The more there are, the better image the writer gets on the kinds of things that they might want to do the same or different; on what works and doesn't, on what they agree with or don't. It's pretty tough to do that with only , say three reviews in a thread!

Of course, I keep trying to write reviews for all fights, but life seems to think I need to eat and sleep and work and spend time with the family. I need an office with a door, rather than a cubicle, so I can review at work again. Too many people notice right now!!!


Damn it, I'm entitled to breaks too!!

[erik]

That's not an insult. It's a fact. I'll take your advice and stop reading your posts starting now. Again, my apologies to everyone else for the past few posts..should have been pm's.

Cool, but read one more thing before you go (or not): putting things in quotes is seen as a way to say the exact opposite of the thing in quotes, a form of literary sarcasm if you will.

If I say something like: <i>The Vietnam "War" ended too soon,</i> I'm implying I don't think that it was really a war.

When you put quotes around the word <i>good</i> in the phrase <i>as if "good" songs are some kind of constant in the universe</i>, you're implying that there's no such thing as an a priori good song.

Everything that's been said (up until this post about quotation mark usage) has been about production, or songwriting, or both or something to do with the topic, so I don't really feel like anyone was crapping on the thread.

[Southwest_Statistic]

A well dressed employee will get the promotion before the hippie with straggly hair, even if the hippie is more qualified. Also, if you where to meet this well dressed employee on the street, your perception of him would probably be better then what you think of the straggly hippie employee who is better at his job.

No matter how sweet the 420 pound girl with acne on her face may be, she is always the last to get married. Her drop dead beautiful asshole of a sister will get the promotion at work, the rich man, and the Mercedes.

I'm not saying any of this stuff is right. Not at all.

Promoting the Hippie might very well be what keeps that company afloat in the long run. The man that would marry the 420 pound girl might just be in the happiest relationship you have ever seen. It's possible.

The cold hard fact is that we are all image conscious when it comes to something. Not music, because we are musicians, naturally we see - or hear, rather - through the glamor and gloss and see the industry for what it is. But that is only because this is our genre.

I love movies. Big explosions, action, heroes, the plastic glamor and gloss. I love it. However, there is a whole wide other world of independent-film-freaks that dislike the plastic glamor and gloss of corporate films and daytime television. These people spend their days arguing with each other over whether Old-Style-Film captures a certain “Warmth” and “Authenticity” that digital film cameras do not. These same exact industry independent people listen to Hillery Duff.

I toss out production as being unimportant to my own personal listening pleasure. It's not important to me because if I hear soul in a song, I will vote for it. But in my review I also take into consideration the thoughts of the larger percentage of people who buy Hi-Fi 5.1 Surround Sound systems for a reason.

[Caravan Ray]

A well dressed employee will get the promotion before the hippie with straggly hair, even if the hippie is more qualified. Also, if you where to meet this well dressed employee on the street, your perception of him would probably be better then what you think of the straggly hippie employee who is better at his job.

99% of the time - yes, you may be right. But if you ran a shop that only sold, say, drug-smoking apparatus or those red, green and yellow crotcheted Rasta-man beanies and you need a salesman to run a stall down at the local markets - then the straggly-haired hippie would probably be your man - even if the well-dressed employee was a former salesperson of the year at the local BMW dealership.

It's horses for courses.

[Southwest_Statistic]

[stupid verbal illustration]

[the sound of anti-aircraft fire]

You won't be the last in this thread to try to shoot one of those out of the sky. It's way to much fun. I would too right now if it wasn't my own.

Just please, while you guys are shooting it down, try not to miss the forest for the trees by concentrating on the failable logic of the illustrations. And try not to wrench my own illustrations out of my hands by twisting them or adding "hidden meaning". Dont do it for me. Do it for the children.

[erik]

The forest and trees of all of it is that nothing can be proclaimed to be "That's just how it is" true for everyone. If you wanna say that you yourself will always hire the non-hippie, then cool. If you wanna say that you yourself will never marry the way-fat girl, then cool. But hippies get jobs and promotions, and fat girls get wedding rings. Just not from you.

And that is okay.

[Southwest_Statistic]

[more anti-aircraft fire]

I'm not saying any of this stuff is right. Not at all.

While you guys are shooting it down, try not to miss the forest for the trees by concentrating on the failable logic of the illustrations.

[erik]

Just say what you were trying to say then, without analogies, because I'm the second person who has misunderstood you.

[EightLeggedOedipus]

Uppity uppity. Wow.

Some people will review a song's impact - in how it sounds to the untrained listener. This is reviewing the song as a product, as it stands, all things considered and taken at face value.

Others may review a song based on its potential, the way a song can be. Some people are talented enough to ignore production flaws, and listen to a song and hear its pure potential. This is the way a talent scout often hears a band.

I appreciate both kind of reviews, and I tend to flip-flop between reviewing styles, although others are very consistent on one style. 15-16 seems to review much more on potential. This is just my categorization and it makes sense to me.

Is there such a thing as a "good" song? What is the meaning of life? Is it all fate or free will? How many licks does it take to get the center of a Songfight thread?

[Mogosagatai]

::lick:: One... ::lick:: Two... ::chomp:: Three.

Three.

[thehipcola]

Some questions from your post:

Others may review a song based on its potential, the way a song can be.

-just curious, "can" be what? something other than what it is?

Some people are talented enough to ignore production flaws, and listen to a song and hear its pure potential.

-again, just askin', "potential" for what? to be a better song? to be different? potential as in what the song would be after it became something other than what it was when it had potential?

So a talented talent scout would try to connect the artist with a producer to realize this potential? The potential for a song to make the best possible "impact".

So maybe it's not just the "untrained" masses who listen for impact. The trained peeps do too.