The Songwriter Forum - songwriting reviews, tips and chat
Songwriter Forum => The Bar => Topic started by: Kafla on September 02, 2012, 09:57:28 AM
-
Thought I would start a discussion ;D
I don't mean this to be taken the wrong way and I am genuinely just looking for people's views so I hope no one thinks I am referring to them in this.
The way I see it this is a songwriting forum - we should aim to review the songwriting.
Sometimes I feel we get bogged down in production matters and at times this can be at the expense of the actual song. There is a recording section in the forum and I would have thought that this would be the best place to discuss technical aspects of recording.
A beautiful virus picked up on some clipping on my latest song ( which I agree with the good man :D ) but 90% of his review was around the song so I was more than happy with the good advice around avoiding this clipping. I think ABV reviews really brilliantly.
I suppose what I object to is 300 word reviews all around frequencies , plug ins which I can't even spell and anything being too prominent in the mix. This is a massive turn off for me - partly as I don't understand it ( I hold my hands up ) but more importantly as I don't think it matters - as long as the song is presented in nice clean manner I think we should all be able to envisage what it could sound like - I realise some recordings are so poor it makes reviewing the song impossible.
I have listened to numerous remixes and repost after repost of the same song on here where someone has tweaked the mix or reworked the drums etc and quite frankly it makes no difference to me - the actual song is still as strong or as weak as I first thought - I fully accept that this might just be me and maybe some of you want something different from this forum.
It sometime turns into a game of who can spot the production flaw / I am the most technical on the forum.
Now a simple solution might just be to state in advance review the song / review the production or both - I don't know - I just thought I would throw this out there ???
As I say nothing personal here - I love everyone but I need to know if this only irks me :-*
-
I couldn't agree more with the whole of your post Andy. This is meant to be a songwriting forum. Ask for production tips if that's what you want but please, let's focus on the songwriting!
-
I think it's a fine line...
Personally I think saying things like 'the drums are a bit quiet' is alright if it's because of how they've been played or something of the like (related to playing the song, not recording) but saying 'the drums are too far back in the mix' starts off those technical discussions you find tiresome.
-
I agree in part but I also disagree ???
For me it is all down to the context of the track
If a track is posted as a "demo" or an actual release then the production is as important as the the song itself (there, I have said it!!!)
What I mean by this is that the days of sending in a crackly cassette of an acoustic guitar and vocal to a publisher or A&R person - expecting them to imagine a full production - are LONG gone
Any demo nowadays needs to sound like the finished product
If we start ignoring production then should we be ignoring perfomance as well?
For me it is all part and parcel of the "package"
If someone posts a great song that could be improved by a better arrangement, mix, EQ tweak then I think it is fair game to mention and discuss this - if it improves the overall "package"
Where I do agree 100% with you KAFLA is that I think people should be much more expressive in their original post
I have said it before - it would be far easier for the reviewers to give useful feedback if the "intent" of the song was expressed in more detail in the original post
Eg. "Here is a song I am about to pitch to a record company", "here is my new single release", "here is a song I have written for commercial interest", "here is a song I have written to express myself" "here is a song to experiment with key changes" etc.
Whilst not mutually exclusive each "intent" would get a slightly different style of review
I don't think it is "right" to separate the writing, arrangement, performance, production, etc. but I do agree the reviews could be more focussed on the "intent" of the song - as long as this is expressed in the original post
-
I think once everything is recorded , you have selected your tempo , key lyrics and you have your 10 tracks ready and it's all at the mixing stage you essentially have your song
Mixing is so subjective - we all like different things
I accept that a really great mixer will get the best out of a song but I refuse to accept that a poor mix would result in the song being labelled poor or not being accepted by a record label for example - a record company would also pay to get the song properly produced and mixed anyway.
If we are seriously sweating over whether the drums or any other insruments are not eq'd properly then this needs to be changed to the song producing forum
I speak for myself entirely but if that's the way we are going - which wasn't how the forum used to be - then I think we are going to drive even more good guys away
-
Mixing is so subjective - we all like different things
and songs aren't! :o ???
There is no right and wrong here so I do think a discussion is healthy
I refuse to accept that a poor mix would result in the song being labelled poor or not being accepted by a record label for example - a record company would also pay to get the song properly produced and mixed anyway.
I think you are right to a point - I guess it all depends on how bad the mix/performance/arrangement etc. is. The music inductry has changed and A&R people are NOT generally musicians so for them to hear a song as a hit - then it needs to sound like a hit, with good writing, arranging, performance, mixing and producing
Songs are being pitched by pros with all of these boxes ticked (plus a lot more if you take in to account previous track record, existing contacts, relationships etc.) so the chance of a publisher or A&R listening to, let alone taking on, a sub par demo are extremely remote
That is not to say you are not right though KAFLA
This forum should be the place to post these types of songs to get feedback - I don't see a problem with giving feedback on all aspects - if a particular aspect does not interest you then you can quite rightly dismiss it
I sometimes feel the same when someone posts a pop song for review and they get torn apart for not having "deep and meaningful" lyrics
I think the forums here should be a place for ALL feedback (as any feedback must be valuable) but I do agree that one should have their own "filter" to the feedback and decide which to take on board
I personally get a lot out of reading other people's reviews of other people's songs - both on the song and the production - some I agree with and some I don't but I do enjoy seeing the difference of opinion
Of course what I have said above only applies to those that intend to pitch commercial songs to publishers and record companies
If people are writing for enjoyment, to express themselves, to develop their craft etc. then I do agree with you 100% KAFLA
As I said before, if people are worried about getting production comments (or don't want them) then I think it is perfectly acceptable to put this in the original post
If people want specific feedback on a particular aspect - lyrics, melody, arrangement, production, commerciality, then I also think it is fine to put this in the OP
We must all do our own bit to get the best out of the forum IMHO
-
Seriously Boydie I agree with most of what you say and generally say on the forum
And perhaps I am not making my point clearly
It's the obsessively technical reviews that I detest - I have no problem with the odd comment about panning, levels , even eq ing but when we start to delve into this frequency and that , boosting whatever and whatever at this kHz - I am like - is this star trek or a songwriters forum ?
Shooting from the hip it gets geeky - and does it improve the songwriting - NO - I will never deter from that view
And yet hardly any comments on lyrics, medlody, chord progressions , tempo , emotions WTF is that all about ?
-
Yeah, I get what you are saying and I do agree
I have made a conscious effort to improve this area of knowledge this year so I find these comments fascinating - although I haven't quite earned my geek T-shirt yet!
I do think the comments are made with the best intentions - ie giving specific EQ frequencies to look at for specific effects - however you are right where you say it is the song that is most important
Production will make a good song sound great - but will not do the same for a bad song
You can't polish a turd...
...but you can roll it in glitter :D ;)
-
;D
I would love to get more positivity back as well - lets praise the things we all do well rather than focus too much on the negatives
I am a great believer in any coaching or feedback that you only pinpoint one weakness even if there are several
I just feel recently there have been a few outstanding songs posted , really top drawer ( not mines :-X ) but they have got lost in inane discussions around drums, or vocal effects
We are a great little community
Just a little tact before we all review ;D
-
Just a few thoughts from the top of my head on this matter
-I agree this place should stay focused on songsmanship. There are lots of forums out there for production tech.
-Production is intrinsically linked with arrangement. And arrangement is part of songwriting. If it were not, all songs would be submitted with one instrument and one vocal. Sometimes it is near impossible to ignore production if discussing the arrangement; the development and presentation of these arrangements is down in part to the production
-I always try to focus on the song first. The song is always key. A great song badly recorded trumps a naff song covered in glitter.
-When giving production points I try to talk in over arching terms rather than specifics. I get specific when people ask specific questions (The Ocean Machine recently mentioned muddiness, I gave some very precise EQ tweaks that could help).
-There are a good few people on here that love discussions about production points. These people I engage with as such. Sometimes in the thread sometimes in PMs, esp if particular questions are asked. If those posts aren't your thing, skip over them!
-As Boydie says, it helps if the initial post flags any area's in which the reviewer would like advice.
-Some production flaws need pointing out. Clipping, especially if resulting in square waves, is not acceptable, ever, as it can damage speaker and headphones. People must, must learn to avoid for everyone's sake :)
-Often, the best songs receive reviews that focus more on the minutiae, as when the song is generally great, only the little things are left to pick apart! This should be taken as a compliment :)
-Don't forget, this place rocks, and don't get caught up in niggles 8) 8)
-
I think JAMES' post would have cut through little better if he reduced the plate reverb, added a high pass filter and boosted his EQ slightly at 1Khz
Not forgetting the compression of course :P
-
Ha ha Boydie
I like to do my own research and one thing I read a whole ago was this
http://www.ovnilab.com/articles/clipping.shtml
Allegedly clipping will not damage your speakers :D
But this illustrates my point more than anything - when it gets technical who do you believe ? :o
One mans gospel is anothers bullshit ;)
And an antique is still an antique regardless of whether it's polished or not ::)
-
Kafla, look away....Here comes a techie post!
;)
Clipping:
I have read about this, studied and debated during my Uni days, heard many opinions and tried to absorb as much of the Science as I can. As you correctly say Kafla, there are many conflicting views out there and even now I am learning. As such, do not take this as gospel, just the amalgamation of my learning so far...
Bottom line...
Clipping is bad
Digital flat-lining is bad sound. It sounds granulated and uncomfortable, especially on good headphones/speakers. Badly set output levels and/or compressors during production are the main culprits for these sounds. During the peak of the loudness race (late 90's, early 00's), and (perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not...)before the advent of the extra headroom 24BIT and 32FLOAT provided mastering engineers, clipping became an issue for many well known commercial releases. Oasis "Be Here Now". RHCP "Californication. Two albums I cannot touch as they were RUINED at the master stage.
Do they damage my headphones/speakers? Perhaps. Maybe. Slowly. Over time. Fully peaked "flatlined" sound puts speaker drivers at fully pelt, for extended periods. This is potentially a risk, dependant on how resilient the sound source is.
Over and above anything, Clipped sounds SOUND bad. They are hugely annoying to anyone with an ear for it.
The big place clipping is of risk to speakers is actually during the production phase. In studio speaker monitors. Also guitar/bass/PA amps...
I have had to replace three bass amp speakers in the last 9 months due to customers setting the input drive to 10, and playing too hard (I decided enough was enough. Sold the amps and replaced with amps with 3 times the power: no need to push them so hard now!). Clipped bass frequencies are notoriously bad apparenly...
PA speakers, Studio monitors, etc, often have limiters inside that refuse to play clipped sounds.
When the sound source is the studio mixer, the 0db limit of home listening systems do not apply, so they can be pushed past the red, with damaging sound a clear risk. My Mackie speakers "dim" their sound momentarily when a clipped sound is sent thru them, in a self-protecting mechanism. Clever stuff.
As such, it was drilled into me at college/Uni to always, always avoid clipping in all circumstances. The best way to protect ears, speakers, and to maintain a higher standard of sound in general :D
I repeat. Do not read the above as gospel. Yes, I do this for a living but I have holes in my knowledge and the technical nitty gritty is not my forte, I will admit this. I am much more the creative producer type than the science guy. I do admire their commitment, it just isn't me.
I hope the above makes at least some sense :)
-
Hee Hee
Didn't read it but like your style ;)
-
I think JAMES' post would have cut through little better if he reduced the plate reverb, added a high pass filter and boosted his EQ slightly at 1Khz
Not forgetting the compression of course :P
I saw a great tweet recently. I think it was from Mumford and Sons/The leisure Society, or some nu-folk band I follow...
It said:
"If in doubt, reverb"
;D
-
Hee Hee
Didn't read it but like your style ;)
Ha! Excuse my while I "roll on the floor laughing my arse off"
-
I like the way the reviews are now , a healthy mix of artistic and technical views , I think both are valid. If your not bothered about the techy stuff you don't have to act on it. :-*
-
I like the way the reviews are now , a healthy mix of artistic and technical views , I think both are valid. If your not bothered about the techy stuff you don't have to act on it. :-*
Here here!
-
The best way to review a song? ???
Can open....worms everywhere! :o
I do have genuine problems in this area. Now.... if someone asks:-
"Do you think the Vocal harmonies work?" or "Does this Bass-line compliment the rhythm?" then I can give an opinion. :)
If I'm asked
"I wrote a song, What do you think of it?" Then I'm stuck. If I don't like it, who am I to critique someone's artistic endeavours. What do I know? :-X
I'm not a musician, so I can't help as far as arrangement or style is concerned.
I'm not in the music industry, so I can't give hints on making it commercial.
I failed 'O' level English (Maths and Physics were my bag) so poetry and interpreting lyrics are a mystery to me.
All I am is a middle aged bloke who has all his life listened to and enjoyed and played (to some extent), all styles of music.
If I think a song is a re-heated piece of self-indulgent retro adolescent nonsense. So what....the charts have always been filled with similar. ;D >:(
If I love a song, I've usually no idea why and all I can usually say is banal platitudes. :-\
I do try to review. There are some very talented people here but I have no idea what is objectively good or bad, only that some things I like and some things I don't. That is why I don't review much, and when I do, it is usually technical comments. It's easy to say, "Ahh, yes, I had problem X and solved it this way"
I have lots of stuff I've written that I don't post here. I usually only enter the competitions.(short time scales and they challenge my creative envelope) Mainly because I don't feel the need to get constant feed back, I know the limitations of my output, and I am working to learn the skills and techniques to improve.
So I ask... to all posters of songs for review. WHAT AM I ACTUALLY REVIEWING FOR? and WHAT DO YOU WANT OF ME AS A REVIEWER?
"Tread lightly because you're treading on my dreams" No idea who said that but until I have the skills and knowledge to over-ride it. I'll go with it.
-
was yeats who wrote that line i think,
funny but second time this week his names come up.
he never had clipping concerns though other than his beard and the wee hedge outside.
-
"Tread lightly because you're treading on my dreams" No idea who said that but until I have the skills and knowledge to over-ride it. I'll go with it.
What a lovely quote.
We should all remember this. When reviewing people's work we are commenting on their creation. One they have toilded over, we should hope! Tact and polite critism is the way forward :)
-
A very good thread this - thanks to whoever started it (can't remember haha)
But here's the rub: a song is a song regardless of whether or not it's a record, right? BUT - and this is a big one, all the songs you really love, the ones that made you want to be a songwriter, you first heard them as records.
That doesn't detract from the fact that they're great songs, but it does mean that someone recognised their potential and invested in them sufficiently to make them into records. If you'd heard them outside of that context, in their raw state, would you have still liked them?
I'm not saying that reviewing a demo recording from a technical point of view is the way forward. I'm saying that the reason we're having this conversation is that songwriting and recording are two sides of the same coin for independent songwriters in the 21st century. It's getting more and more important to be good at both - same for composers, especially working for TV and media.
So at what point does songwriting become production? It depends on how you define production and arrangement I suppose. For me, arrangement is the flow of the song - the narrative. How to arrange all the sections so that it's a journey, something that carries you with it. Other folks see the arrangement as the coming-together of the different instruments, and the parts they play (as in 'string arrangement'
Everything from the strumming pattern down to the frequency of the kick drum sound can effect the way your song is received. So what constitutes a song review?
The whole range.
Personally, I think the forumite asking for the review should say if they're only looking for comments in a certain area.
And remember, active members aren't the only ones reading these threads and listening to your tracks. A comment you leave on someone's song might just be exactly what some anonymous lurker needs to hear.
Sorry if I've sat on the fence here. A few months ago I would have been in 100% agreement with Kafla, but now I'm not so sure...
-
And remember, active members aren't the only ones reading these threads and listening to your tracks. A comment you leave on someone's song might just be exactly what some anonymous lurker needs to hear.
didn`t quite get this?
anyway..a review should be just what you think and are able to say.....i have no technical knowledge ,but if i say some things good ,thats what i think so the OG poster should feel some satisfaction that they achieved what they set out to accomplish...end of.
-
A very good thread this - thanks to whoever started it (can't remember haha)
But here's the rub: a song is a song regardless of whether or not it's a record, right? BUT - and this is a big one, all the songs you really love, the ones that made you want to be a songwriter, you first heard them as records.
That doesn't detract from the fact that they're great songs, but it does mean that someone recognised their potential and invested in them sufficiently to make them into records. If you'd heard them outside of that context, in their raw state, would you have still liked them?
I'm not saying that reviewing a demo recording from a technical point of view is the way forward. I'm saying that the reason we're having this conversation is that songwriting and recording are two sides of the same coin for independent songwriters in the 21st century. It's getting more and more important to be good at both - same for composers, especially working for TV and media.
So at what point does songwriting become production? It depends on how you define production and arrangement I suppose. For me, arrangement is the flow of the song - the narrative. How to arrange all the sections so that it's a journey, something that carries you with it. Other folks see the arrangement as the coming-together of the different instruments, and the parts they play (as in 'string arrangement'
Everything from the strumming pattern down to the frequency of the kick drum sound can effect the way your song is received. So what constitutes a song review?
The whole range.
Personally, I think the forumite asking for the review should say if they're only looking for comments in a certain area.
And remember, active members aren't the only ones reading these threads and listening to your tracks. A comment you leave on someone's song might just be exactly what some anonymous lurker needs to hear.
Sorry if I've sat on the fence here. A few months ago I would have been in 100% agreement with Kafla, but now I'm not so sure...
I agree with all of this - although I am obviously not making my point well enough - entirely my fault ;D
I want more comments on the arrangements - the strings , the choice of vst for each part , the counter melodies , the discordance - this for me is all part of the writing.
What I am talking about is the technie sub conversations around this frequency and that - you simply can't ignore it - because the next poster will pipe up - I can hear that static interference in the mid to high range , 100-243 kHz as well, then the next poster - then the next 'expert ' will pipe up - no your are wrong its not that it's causing it - then they will argue over there credentials - and so on until the song is kind of lost - it does happen!
And Tone - if I can be so bold ??? - you add value to most threads you enter - I really respect your opinion , I know others do too - but you review very few songs ?
And you are the leader ?
Please feel free to kick my cyber balls - but it's true :-*
-
It's true - you got me bang to rights. I don't review many songs. And I'm not going to kick you in the cyber balls either (note to self: 'accidentally' delete Kaf's account in a few weeks time ;) )
It's largely a time issue. I don't spend nearly as much time on the forum as I should or would like to, but paid work has to take priority, and I've had the busiest time ever.
I do still listen to a lot of the songs on the forum, but I'm finding it increasingly hard to put together a helpful review, partly because of some of the points that have been raised in this thread.
And when it's a member you don't know well, or haven't had many exchanges with, it's hard to know where the line is when it comes to gentle criticism.
Because lets face it: there's a big chunk of personal taste involved. And when I read a review that basically says "it's not my cup of tea" I wonder why bother saying that. But then I also acknowledge that someone took the time to post.
Also, the tone of the reviews forum has been getting more technical - and I'm not a technician. It may be 'my' forum, but it's still directed by the members. In many ways I've felt like others are more qualified to comment on some issues I hear in a song, so I let them do it. There's only so much you can say about melody and harmony without running out of metaphors, or confusing people.
I don't want to leave trite, shallow or insincere reviews, and I don't want to post for the sake of it, so generally I won't post unless I have something I think is valuable and honest to say - and that doesn't happen with every song.
But I do try to remain active in other forum conversations to let you know I'm still here and still care about you and the forum.
Thanks for speaking up Kaf :)
-
quote.
Because lets face it: there's a big chunk of personal taste involved. And when I read a review that basically says "it's not my cup of tea" I wonder why bother saying that. But then I also acknowledge that someone took the time to post.
Right(rolling shirt sleeves up)
I probably reply to topics ..in all sections more than anyone? cos i`m on the comp a lot ,keep this site open..so i find it no trouble to just say summat!
Like you`ve said ..theres only so many words and phrases you can keep saying ,.before you slip into cliché..
So .."it`s not my cup of tea"..basically summed i how i felt...it`s not a criticism of the song or the artist..i can listen to it..it may well grow on me.....
Also i` know zip about the science of song making..
If i just left "good" as my feedback,,,,,that means i rate it...and anyone can take that as a big thumbs up that they produced something worthwhile.....
Over to you KAFLA ;D
-
Hee hee ;D
Its good to get this out in the open - I like to understand where everyone is coming from - sometimes you judge people wrongly or misunderstand them.
I think Tone's point about using actual recordings as our reference is very valid - we are all amateurs on here trying to improve - yet sometimes we ferociously criticise 'demos' to these standards
My point is when we get into the technicalities its got to be right and wrong - if something is clipping for example it must be - if something needs a boost at whatever khz then it does - but all the techies argue about it - how can that be? I read it all and then start to question who really knows what - the next viewpoint is more cogent than the last.
I dont want anyone to change or feel threatened by the topic - if you have the knowledge please flaunt it - I suppose I just want the reviews to more closely focus on the writing - that was the major reason I got sucked into this community and hung around.
And STC if you want to leave - its good - thats fine as well - I do this sometimes - it shows you have taken the time to listen ;D
-
My point is when we get into the technicalities its got to be right and wrong
Ah ha - now we are getting to it! lol
The simple answer to this is NO - there are very few "rights & wrongs" when it comes to production and the technicalities
The more I have started learning about production the more I understand that there are few "rights & wrongs"
It is exactly the same as any other part of songwiriting - there are some general "rules" and guidelines but they can all be broken to achieve a desired effect
e.g. a song should have a verse, pre-chorus, chorus, bridge
This is kind of accepted wisdom but is often mangled to suit the song
Exactly the same thing is true with production - e.g. vocals should be clear and not clip - I can think of all sorts of vocal effects that have a really crappy lo-fi quality that break the rules - but they fit
For me it is about learning all of the "rules" (both songwriting and production), which is relatively easy
The real skill then comes in using the rules to create something "unique" and learning how to break the rules to achieve a desired effect
Something as simple as EQing a Kick drum (which is just a thud after all!) would be done completely differently by each "pro" producer, who may agonise over days or weeks to achieve the perfect sound by layering up different kick sounds etc.
There are some general "rules" and guidelines with regard to EQ and compression but I bet no two people would process a kick in exactly the same way
This may seem to be bordering on OCD but to some it is as important in making a line of lyric work
-
I am guilty of the not my cup of tea thing , so why do I bother leaving a comment ?
I leave a comment just to say that I bothered to listen and can still appreciate the quality of the music and the time and effort that has been spent on it.
I find 99% of the reviews on here fair and helpfull , even if its just a well done, lt gives you a little lift, and no oneseems too brutal , there is one that's a bit over sarcasticat times no names ;D
Generally very good place to be , thanks,
-
+1 to the "not my cup of tea" comment
I think this is a great "opener" to a review - I do not recall seeing it on its own
It is usually followed by either
...so take the following with a pinch of salt...
or
...but I still really liked / could appreciate...
I think being up front that it is not your kind of thing helps put the review in to context so I think it is a useful opener
-
Good discussion..have only read half the replies so far :P..my thoughts:
- We've mentioned before (a long time ago I think) that the reason people may concentrate on production more is it is easier than talking about the song, as often in that regard you just either feel 'I like it', or 'I don't like it'.
-I think it just as important for the poster to remember that we are not professional reviewers as it is for us reviewers to remember that most people don't have access to pro recording facilities.
Songs are generally posted with little explanation or a little bio of how the song came about.
IMO, it would be much more helpful to the reviewer to add as much detail as you can on your thoughts on the song. Which bits you are unsure about, which bits you think are great, what you are trying to achieve, the genre you are writing in, what the song is supposed to convey?
Giving the reviewer some things to focus on would really help get a better review, especially when the song is not the reviewers cup of tea :)
-
Hee hee , I feel like a dog with a bone here ::)
It all about the song - first and last
I would rather develop my songwriting in terms of learning new chord progression, melodies and great words/imagery for my lyrics and continue to be workmanlike like in my production.
If I could take one item to a desert island it would be my guitar not my Mac.
I hear all these little mix tweaks etc and I cant hear the difference - its the same song ??? But its beginning to look like this is just me - the majority seem have the other view from the replies here.
But it wouldn't do if we were all the same and the way others approach the beast fascinates me :o
-
There are a lot of people sitting on the fence here. This is a songwriting forum, not a producers forum. There are many who will disagree with my views and that's ok. I just wanted to reiterate that song craft and production are in my opinion very different!
I couldn't agree more with your thoughts about this subject Andy. I'd also be taking my acoustic with me on to that desert island and not my Mac!
I'd be interested to read opinions on songwriting credits and production. This is linked to the current debate as reviews about production and songwriting suggest that the two are intrinsically linked. I see the two quite separately providing the writer has written the lyrics, melody and provided the framework of chords for the arrangement. Anyway, If a producer takes a song written by someone else and develops the production, perhaps even changing a chord that he/she believes better supports the melody of a song does the producer deserve to be acknowledged as a co-writer? I've produced several tracks for other people and I don't believe that my extensive input warrants a writer's credit. Furthermore, I wouldn't dream of asking for this acknowledgment, yet there are some who would expect to be included as a co writer. Any thoughts on this? Perhaps it will open up a whole new can of worms!
-
Hee hee , I feel like a dog with a bone here ::)
It all about the song - first and last
I would rather develop my songwriting in terms of learning new chord progression, melodies and great words/imagery for my lyrics and continue to be workmanlike like in my production.
If I could take one item to a desert island it would be my guitar not my Mac.
I hear all these little mix tweaks etc and I cant hear the difference - its the same song ??? But its beginning to look like this is just me - the majority seem have the other view from the replies here.
But it wouldn't do if we were all the same and the way others approach the beast fascinates me :o
No, I agree that the focus is on the song. Some aspects of production - such as arrangement are part of the songwriting IMO.
But my main point is that it is very hard to review a song when people say 'Here is a song, what do you think'. Mikhay (?) I think, pointed that out earlier.
It's easiest to give a review when the poster gives us their thoughts and gives us things to think about.
We aren't pro reviewers. If I'm given a list of things to address in my review, Im going to do a much more informative review. Otherwise it's going to be more along the lines of 'it's good, continue', or 'Nah, I dont really like it..'....
-
Officially melody and lyric are the song - 100% , not even chords believe it or not - doesnt matter if you change them all - or even write them from scratch.
Of course everything can be negotiated and most writers would be fair but if it went to court then melody
and lyric is all that matters
This has been tested in court many times , famously around the whiter shade of pale song were initially the organ player who wrote and played the phenomenal organ intro was awarded 40% of the credit. This was later over turned and a precedence was set that only melody and lyric matter.
I think production / mixing is a bit like decorating/furnishing your house - it might bring out the best features and can be adapted to everyones taste but the house is the house - you need to love it to begin with.
Again speaking for myself I do not find the detailed production critique helpful in any way to my songwriting and they detract from the point of this site - the songwriting.
If I wanted production tips I would post my song in the recording section and ask - how can I improve this mix etc
I totally agree that a bio before you post the song , perhaps briefly what you are looking to achieve with the song so others can assess the song around whether or not you achieved these goals.
And of course take the review in good spirit - I am all for challenging the reviewers stance and reinforcing yourself where necessary but there are a few on here that defend their music period as if they just want people to listen and praise them - thats not what this site is about. I feel that if more than 2 people comment on an negative aspect of my writing then I need to do something about it.
Andy laurence llewelyn bowen Kafla :D
-
Andy laurence llewelyn bowen Kafla :D
I shall, henceforth, visualise you as wild of hair and poofy of sleeve.
-
You kinky bassa :-*
I hope your not having a little tug just now ::)
-
You kinky bassa :-*
I hope your not having a little tug just now ::)
errrrrrrrrrm
No
-
Stop lying Nighthawk
I know you love all that ye olde medieval big hair and poofy sleeve
ha ha
-
I 'd love to see a section on the forum for sharing songs which is separate from reviews. Not everyone is looking for a review, they simply want an outlet for their music after all the time that they've spent bringing their songs to life. If the listener wants to comment, they might be inspired to send a personal message or not.
Mihkay made a great point in an earlier post, indicating that he often doesn't feel qualified to comment on a song that someone has devoted great care and attention to writing. I feel exactly the same. I prefer to stay clear of strong criticism though I will be critical of a person's work if someone is often critical of other people's work. I believe we should all be very careful about how we review, trying to look for the positives and politely suggest ways that a track might be improved upon if we feel that we have good ideas that might add value.
-
It all depends on the "intention" of a song IMHO
If someone wants to send it to a publisher, A&R person etc. then the fact remains that to stand a chance of being "picked up" it needs to sound like a hit at the demo stage - which means a top notch song, top notch performance and top notch production
It really does need to tick all boxes
So when someone posts a song that sounds like a demo then all 3 factors need to be considered IMHO
OR - comments along the lines of "you would need to produce a full demo before submitting etc." would be valid
If, however, someone posts a song they have written "for themselves" then these factors are not so important - but if they have gone to the trouble of recording it with proper mics, multi-track, used some processing etc. I do not see the harm in people giving advice and feedback on how they can make the recording & sound better - which WILL make the song sound better
The same points could be made about performance - a good song performed badly takes some "imagination" from the listener to appreciate how good the song is (Publishers and A&R people do not have the time to use their imagination and may not be able to)
A bad song with a top notch performance and production will inevitably sound better - we have all heard terrible songs in the top 40!!!
A good song with a good performance and production will stand a better chance
I am sure (revole)around wont mind me using his track as an example
Here is his original song posted for review:
http://www.songwriterforum.co.uk/song-reviews/coasting-from-the-sun-(acoustic-demo)/
Many of the reviews, including my own, suggested a full band production to best "show off" the song
I liked the song so much I re-recorded it and produced it a bit (far from "top notch" but it was generally accepted as an improvement)
http://www.songwriterforum.co.uk/song-reviews/coasting-from-the-sun-(boydie-demo)/
This is most definitely the same song but I think the production "shows it off" better
It hasn't "improved" the song itself but the drums, bass, guitar and vocals give a different vibe
Does this constitute a co-write? - I don't think so
Does it improve the song - I think so
I personally don't think you can separate songwriting from production as the production can change the feel of the song
Someone else could take the same track and turn it into a deep house club floor filler with the right production - same song but completely different feel
Without both songwriting and production being presented together it is difficult to hear the overall intention of the song
The Radio 1 Live Lounge CDs are full of great examples of songs performed completely differently - same chords and melodies but often the song is transformed with a different performance/production - sometimes for the better and sometimes much worse!!!
I definitely fall on the side of the fence that songwriting, performance and production for "commercial" intentions are intertwined
The song can be written on an acoustic - but the production is essential to show it off in it's best light
Therefore I feel production is valid to be commented on in the forum reviews- unless the OP puts info in saying that they are not interested in production comments of course
I 'd love to see a section on the forum for sharing songs which is separate from reviews. Not everyone is looking for a review, they simply want an outlet for their music after all the time that they've spent bringing their songs to life. If the listener wants to comment, they might be inspired to send a personal message or not.
I suggested exactly this back in April but the idea got shot down in flames
http://www.songwriterforum.co.uk/the-bar/'shake-up'-of-the-reviews-forum/
-
Another factor that we should consider. We all want different things from this place.
Personally:
I post finished songs, not work in progress. I am the artsy type that will rarely, if ever, go back and edit a song once I finish it. When I am writing and recording I have a group of musicians and close friends who give me feedback. So it is moulded by other people to some extent during the creation phase.
I don't share the work online till I am happy with it. If it is flawed in the eyes of some, fine. There are no right and wrongs with art, just opinions.
I DO want to hear what people think to influence future writings and help me grow as a writer. I am not after feedback to help me rewrite and/or remix the song in question. But I do want to see what people take to and do not take to in my work so I can write better work going forward. This has happened in the 8-9 months I have been here. And for this I am very grateful to the lovely forumites here :)
This is very different to others on here, who want exactly what I don't look for; advice to help improve their current song, the one in question
I am not simply sharing or showing off my songs, I get that from friends, fb, twitter etc etc... I want a review and an honest one, and I get that here! The differing views we all have are valid and help us see our art in new light :)
I do love the quote mentioned yesterday, wonderfully applicable to this site...
"Tread lightly for you tread on my dreams" (Yeats)
Something we should all keep in mind :) :)
-
This is from the review guidelines , I have highlighted the relevant section in bold:
Be constructive. This is the most important guideline of all. It's fine to say if you don't like a song, but you must say why. Likewise, posts such as 'Wow, great song' although nice are not helpful. Please give reasons for your opinions on a song. Feedback from other artists will benefit the community greatly.
Review the song! There is a separate section for reviewing recordings. Please use it
Be patient! If your song has not been reviewed a few hours after you post it, please do not post again asking why. However, if days go by and your song review thread falls down the list while others have been reviewed, feel free to bump the thread.
-
...unless you see production as part of the songwriting process and not just part of the recording :P ;)
Off we go again ;D
Seriously though, I think we will achieve the opposite of what we are trying to achieve if we strictly enforce this type of thing
Is the arrangement part of the song?
Is the performance part of the song?
I hate the idea of listening to a song and feeling there are certain things that spring to mind that I feel I can't mention (and I hate the idea of someone else hearing something in mine that they don't say!)
I like the idea of the original post being much more descriptive about the "intent" of the song - and for the reviews to follow this lead
e.g.
"this is a song I have finished and I am looking for feedback before I record a full demo"
in this instance the reviews would be squarely focussed on the song and possibly some production and arrangement options/ideas
"I think this song is ready to send to publishers - what do you think"
in this instance everything in the song is fair game - structure, lyric, production, mix, commerciality etc.
"I am about to release this on iTunes - what do you think"
again everything is fair game but perhaps this might attract more specific production points
"here is my new single we have released"
These are the ones I personally don't like so much on the forum - they appear to be looking to share their music rather than receive a contructive review/critique - and I would still like to see these types of reviews in a separate area of the forum
Reviewers should be free to say whatever they think regardless of topic - as I have said before it is up to the reader to decide whether to pay any attention or not
-
If production , arrangement , performance all form part of the songwriting Boydie , this statement makes no sense
Review the song! There is a separate section for reviewing recordings. Please use it
What would be left to review in the recording section ?
-
Another interesting angle in your theory is this Boydie - please be aware that I am looking at this from a healthy debate and not who's right or wrong :D
If performance , arrangement , production all form part of songwriting surely you would also argue that:
- a stand in guitarist at one of your gigs now has a writing credit on your song for at least for that performance
- you co-wrote the new STC and Garner effort
- did Liam Gallacher co write many oasis tunes - surely a huge part of oasis's success was his unique vocal delivery or performance
- did Brian Eno co write achtung baby with U2 due to the unique style he produced and mixed the record in
Just some friendly thoughts - who knows ???
-
If production , arrangement , performance all form part of the songwriting Boydie , this statement makes no sense
Review the song! There is a separate section for reviewing recordings. Please use it
What would be left to review in the recording section ?
It does make sense to me - review the song - i.e. the melody, lyric, harmony, performance, arrangement, production, mix - anything that jumps out as being good or bad - and give constructive comments on how to make any of these elements better
The recording section (to me) is for tips on recording, specific questions, gear recommendations etc.
I really don't see a problem with the current set-up ???
Your comments in the last post actually supports my theory:
- a stand in guitarist at one of your gigs now has a writing credit on your song for at least for that performance
No, but if someone from the press were to REVIEW the gig they would include comments about the stand-in guitarist if they were exceptionally good (or bad) and this feedback would be really useful when planning the next gig
- you co-wrote the new STC and Garner effort
I have already said that I do not feel producing a song deserves a writing credit in my (revole)around example - but I DO feel that my work on the song shows it in a much better light, so as a result the song is indeed "better" and will be better received - therefore production points should be included as part of the overall review process
- did Liam Gallacher co write many oasis tunes - surely a huge part of oasis's success was his unique vocal delivery or performance
If you asked someone to review or comment on an Oasis tune they certainly would make a comment about Liam's singing style - it even prompted a whole genre of music!!! Try and and say "sunshyyyne" without a Madchster accent! - and yes, Liam's vocal style and attitude WAS a huge part of Oasis's success - I am not sure the tracks would have been such hits if Chico had sung them!
- did Brian Eno co write achtung baby with U2 due to the unique style he produced and mixed the record in
I am not so up on the production on U2 stuff - but I am not sure the songs would have been the same without Edge's delay ridden guitar - performance or production - who cares! (which is precisely my point!!!)
So just to clarify what I am saying - songwriting and production is separate but come together to form the overall package of the song (along with performance)
-
Boydie,
I cannot help but concede you have made a good case for your argument - I don't seem to be able to make my own point well enough which is frustrating to say the least - but it is the truth ???
This forum has changed so much since the early days when we used to talk almost exclusively about the songs - not production and certainly not in the kind of microscopic detail that it does now
Yes I can choose to ignore this part of the review but it doesn't mean that it ceases to exsist - my mind doesn't work like that - you think you have posted a belter of a song and someone comments about an effect here or there
But the public gets what the public wants and it seems clear from the views in this issue ( Paul and I aside ) that this is the model you want the reviews to be based around
I am going to shut up now, concede the argument and have a little break and work on some songs ;)
Peace ;D
-
KAFLA
You have nothing to concede - I do actually agree with you on most parts
ALL of my comments and arguments are based on submitting demos to publishers and A&Rs
If this is not the aim of the writer then I agree with you 100% - you are absolutely spot on
If we can encourage posters to be more specific when posting a song for review (something we all seem to agree on) the reviewers can ensure that the reviews are as relevant as possible
I will certainly try harder to review the song rather than focus on production elements (which I am currently trying to learn so it is natural my ears are getting drawn to them!)
It is all good and this has been an interesting discussion
I found JAMES' comments particularly interesting - posting a "finished" song and using feedback for next time
I have never even thought of doing this so am going to try it on the next song I put up for review
-
Cheers Boydie - it's odd how you can often end up debating with someone whom you respect and have pretty similar views too?
I respect you immensely , I mean that - but neither of us were giving up yesterday - of course all your arguments make sense if you view all apsects of the beast as songwriting / reviewable ?
But I didn't hold that view - ha ha - that was the fundemental issue - but we kept debating it from our own perspective - a vicious circle.
I was trying to make the simple link between songwriting credit equals the songwriting part and that's what we should be reviewing.
You want to look beyond that and review the lot - even if it is or isn't part of the songwriting. I can completely understand that.
But I think we have kind of done that to death now.
Anyway to move the discussion on some more thoughts around reviewing ???
Over time it's impossible to review objectively on here - your view becomes tainted/ coloured by the relationship you have with that person or even by the reviews they give you.
It can become a fight for the alpha male role - some people definitely feel others a threat and over criticise in their reviews - the same ones that can't take any criticism at all of their own work. This can be cleverly hidden behind the old ' I criticise the better material harder as it can take it'
You can see this quite clearly with the positive reviews non threatening work receives.
And of course we all form positive relationships as well and get to a place where we find it hard to criticise.
Just some thoughts not accusations :-*
-
Over time it's impossible to review objectively on here - your view becomes tainted/ coloured by the relationship you have with that person or even by the reviews they give you.
I agree. I suspect none of us here wish to deliberately hurt another's feelings and mostly will try to encourage, especially with some one we feel we "know". However even with a newbie I begin with the thought of "What do I like about this?" rather than "What don't I like?"
This does give me a positive place to start from, but it also has its disadvantage. WHAT IF I DON'T LIKE THE SONG? It's a hard place to get back from. I don't work for the NME or Melody Maker (do they still exist?), I don't have all day to sit and critically listen to songs, and even if I did what is my opinion worth? If I said a song was derivative and unimaginative, I would get no thanks from anyone, even if I suspect, everyone except the writer though the same as me. :o
So a song will usually only get one listen. If I like it or it catches my ear in some way then I listen again. If I don't like it then it's on the reject pile. Sorry but why would I listen again to something I don't like. I barely have the time to listen properly to the stuff I do like and what can I say? It's just my opinion. Why should I upset someone's feelings over a matter of opinion. And I've been caught before in a short Flame War on another site. Luckily it was sorted out and was just a language misunderstanding but I'm very reluctant to give any negative feedback until I feel I "know" the person receiving it.
Which brings me to your next point.
It can become a fight for the alpha male role - some people definitely feel others a threat and over criticise in their reviews - the same ones that can't take any criticism at all of their own work. This can be cleverly hidden behind the old ' I criticise the better material harder as it can take it'
You can see this quite clearly with the positive reviews non threatening work receives.
And of course we all form positive relationships as well and get to a place where we find it hard to criticise.
Just some thoughts not accusations :-*
I do feel that the better the material is the more detailed (not harsher) the criticism should be. The writer obviously has command of the basics. It's in tune, the timings are correct etc. But with a "non-threatening" work to use your words, there is no point in going into details when there may be fundamental flaws that need sorting. OK, this does tend to be more in the production side again (sorry) but in the fundamental song aspects, melody, lyrics, we are again into a matter of opinion for the most part. We all, I suspect encourage newbies perhaps uncritically but are you implying that if a song is obviously the work of a beginner it should still be critiqued to the same standard of a semi-pro work? Now if the forum was part of a Creative song-writing course with a professor handing out grades I'd agree that all work should be critiqued to the same standard. But who of us here is that Professor? It's certainly not me. :o ;D
Finally. I sorry if I am re-covering a previous point but the separation of what is production and what is song-writing has been gone into in great depth earlier in this thread, and very interesting it was too (thanks chaps) but I think it may be two sides of the same coin. :o
When reviewing a song. What are we trying to achieve?
How many of us have sold a song? Very few I'd imagine, so we're not trying to give advice on how to make a song more marketable.
Are we saying what we'd do to make it more like how we'd have done it?
Are we politely saying "Must try Harder?"
I have to be pretty sure of my ground before I'd start giving unsolicited "Advice". Again, it's only my opinion. It's a minefield of hurt feelings, imagined slights, and fishing for reciprocal compliments. Mostly sub-consciously. :o
SO I ASK AGAIN. "WHAT DOES A WRITER WANT FROM ME AS A CRITIC"? ???
You can see why I do so few reviews. I usually need a couple of beers to loosen up enough. If I like something then I probably wouldn't change anything and unless a specific question is asked I'll either give a one line thumbs up, although that has been frowned upon in the past as being useless as criticism so more likely, I'll say nothing. If I don't like it, then after only one listen, my opinion will be shallow and therefore worthless to the writer.
Before you all say "THAT'S JUST A COP OUT", I wish I did review more. It would allow me to post more of my material up for much needed advice. But I don't post songs up for review much. I'm averaging about 1 song per 80 posts at the moment ;-) and half of them were competition entries.
I applaud all the contributors who do take the time to listen and comment (If everyone was like me this would be a very quiet site) and I'll take any criticism on any aspect of my material. But personally I need to be given some parameters for my review.
-
Over time it's impossible to review objectively on here - your view becomes tainted/ coloured by the relationship you have with that person or even by the reviews they give you.
I agree. I suspect none of us here wish to deliberately hurt another's feelings and mostly will try to encourage, especially with some one we feel we "know". However even with a newbie I begin with the thought of "What do I like about this?" rather than "What don't I like?"
This does give me a positive place to start from, but it also has its disadvantage. WHAT IF I DON'T LIKE THE SONG? It's a hard place to get back from. I don't work for the NME or Melody Maker (do they still exist?), I don't have all day to sit and critically listen to songs, and even if I did what is my opinion worth? If I said a song was derivative and unimaginative, I would get no thanks from anyone, even if I suspect, everyone except the writer though the same as me. :o
So a song will usually only get one listen. If I like it or it catches my ear in some way then I listen again. If I don't like it then it's on the reject pile. Sorry but why would I listen again to something I don't like. I barely have the time to listen properly to the stuff I do like and what can I say? It's just my opinion. Why should I upset someone's feelings over a matter of opinion. And I've been caught before in a short Flame War on another site. Luckily it was sorted out and was just a language misunderstanding but I'm very reluctant to give any negative feedback until I feel I "know" the person receiving it.
Which brings me to your next point.
It can become a fight for the alpha male role - some people definitely feel others a threat and over criticise in their reviews - the same ones that can't take any criticism at all of their own work. This can be cleverly hidden behind the old ' I criticise the better material harder as it can take it'
You can see this quite clearly with the positive reviews non threatening work receives.
And of course we all form positive relationships as well and get to a place where we find it hard to criticise.
Just some thoughts not accusations :-*
I do feel that the better the material is the more detailed (not harsher) the criticism should be. The writer obviously has command of the basics. It's in tune, the timings are correct etc. But with a "non-threatening" work to use your words, there is no point in going into details when there may be fundamental flaws that need sorting. OK, this does tend to be more in the production side again (sorry) but in the fundamental song aspects, melody, lyrics, we are again into a matter of opinion for the most part. We all, I suspect encourage newbies perhaps uncritically but are you implying that if a song is obviously the work of a beginner it should still be critiqued to the same standard of a semi-pro work? Now if the forum was part of a Creative song-writing course with a professor handing out grades I'd agree that all work should be critiqued to the same standard. But who of us here is that Professor? It's certainly not me. :o ;D
Finally. I sorry if I am re-covering a previous point but the separation of what is production and what is song-writing has been gone into in great depth earlier in this thread, and very interesting it was too (thanks chaps) but I think it may be two sides of the same coin. :o
When reviewing a song. What are we trying to achieve?
How many of us have sold a song? Very few I'd imagine, so we're not trying to give advice on how to make a song more marketable.
Are we saying what we'd do to make it more like how we'd have done it?
Are we politely saying "Must try Harder?"
I have to be pretty sure of my ground before I'd start giving unsolicited "Advice". Again, it's only my opinion. It's a minefield of hurt feelings, imagined slights, and fishing for reciprocal compliments. Mostly sub-consciously. :o
SO I ASK AGAIN. "WHAT DOES A WRITER WANT FROM ME AS A CRITIC"? ???
You can see why I do so few reviews. I usually need a couple of beers to loosen up enough. If I like something then I probably wouldn't change anything and unless a specific question is asked I'll either give a one line thumbs up, although that has been frowned upon in the past as being useless as criticism so more likely, I'll say nothing. If I don't like it, then after only one listen, my opinion will be shallow and therefore worthless to the writer.
Before you all say "THAT'S JUST A COP OUT", I wish I did review more. It would allow me to post more of my material up for much needed advice. But I don't post songs up for review much. I'm averaging about 1 song per 80 posts at the moment ;-) and half of them were competition entries.
I applaud all the contributors who do take the time to listen and comment (If everyone was like me this would be a very quiet site) and I'll take any criticism on any aspect of my material. But personally I need to be given some parameters for my review.
Some really good points there Mihkay, you should post your songs mate - I think they would be well received.
You posted a song a while ago and asked for deliberately brutal feedback - I am thinking of doing that in future - just lie on the ground and let everyone put the boot in ;D
Might not need to after this ???
I would also like to hear Tone's view on the different sections - maybe he has changed his stance - its his forum - but the recording section says in the guidelines
Review the recording! There is a separate section for reviewing songs. Please use it
To me it was definitely set up one section for reviewing song one for reviewing recording and this section is not for discussing tips on recording, specific questions, gear recommendations etc. Boydie.
If it was set up separately I would love to know why Tone?
I am also trying to consider this from a newbies point of view - does the techie speak put them off or encourage them to post?
-
I hope you're sitting down...
...I pretty much agree with everything that has been said in the last 3 posts and have very little to add!
SO I ASK AGAIN. "WHAT DOES A WRITER WANT FROM ME AS A CRITIC"?
I think this is the key question, which is easily resolved by the original poster adding a little more detail to the first post when they post the track
Perhaps this is something that could be added to the Rules / Welcome letter?
-
I hope you're sitting down...
...I pretty much agree with everything that has been said in the last 3 posts and have very little to add!
SO I ASK AGAIN. "WHAT DOES A WRITER WANT FROM ME AS A CRITIC"?
I think this is the key question, which is easily resolved by the original poster adding a little more detail to the first post when they post the track
Perhaps this is something that could be added to the Rules / Welcome letter?
I think we should all rejoin under pseudonyms and see what happens :o
Hi Im ALFAK :-\
-
I think we should all rejoin under pseudonyms and see what happens
We might have to at this rate ;D ;)
-
I`ve just read the last the last 3 pages of this thread and i feel i`ve aged.. ;)
A point i would like to pick up on this..
Quote
- you co-wrote the new STC and Garner effort
I have already said that I do not feel producing a song deserves a writing credit in my (revole)around example - but I DO feel that my work on the song shows it in a much better light, so as a result the song is indeed "better" and will be better received - therefore production points should be included as part of the overall review process
........................................
The collaborations going on ,from my experience are being done in quite a casual manner....the honour code is much in force!....but i`m fine with this...
KAFLA...made the legal point..melody and lyrics are what would be constituted a song and defended by the law....a re mix or similar does not entitle those involved in the new production to claim any rights over the song...
With "still his lady" the melody and lyrics were complete before BOYDIE got them...but on his version ,it could be argued that the melody was enhanced ,and i would`nt disagree with that...
I also think if co-writers are kept to a minimum it`s tidier and with less chance of problems.....all i can say for my part is ,,if i get a credit as a co-writer and that song became big with financial rewards...anyone associated with it,,will certainly not be forgotten,,both from their input or monetary reward .
-
Have been following this thread with interest. :) I've not read every single post, but a lot of them and enough to get the gist.
From my own personal point of view I think the reviews people give are fine. You end up with a decent mix most of the time. Some people go on about the production side and some the song itself.
Personally I'm happy to recieve critisism's of any kind. In my view it all helps.
When I'm reviewing others I tend to look at what level that songwriter/musician seems to be at. If they are putting forward songs that have bass, drums, strings, guitar keyboards etc..... then they obviously have a good grasp of what they are doing and sometimes the only thing left to comment on that might improve it IS the production.
When you get to know people on here, as has been already said, you get to know the standard of that persons work and roughly what they are capable of... and where the weaknesses are. It makes it easier to review.
I've had very little time to be on here lately and there are a lot of new people and a lot of songs for review. It looks like songs are getting less reviews because there are so many. But the standard of reviews seems to be same as always to me. I don't see any problem personally.
It's good to see these things still being discussed though ;D
-
Interesting thread. Hopefully I read through it's four pages carefully enough to not merely re-iterate what others have already said, but here's my thoughts.
I can't tell you the number of times that I've heard the statement 'If a song is good then it will stand up with just a voice and an acoustic guitar' over the last 40 years - and like a lot of sweeping statements it's 50% true and 50% bollocks - or more politely - it's true in some cases and not true in others. Certainly, you can't make a bad song sound great like that, but sometimes the production and performance are part of the song. I would draw a parallel with cinema: would Citizen Kane and Casablanca still be great films if they were acted by the cast of Neighbours and filmed in cold 80's video colours? No they wouldn't - yet the writing would be the same.
I'm a big fan of trip-hop bands like Portishead and Massive Attack, and with stuff like that, the production and the song come together to make a great record. It's hard to imagine anyone being able to hear the potential of songs like 'Glory Box' or 'Mysterons' if someone sat there and played them on an acoustic - or if you wanted more traditional examples, then how about 'Strawberry Fields', 'River Deep, Mountain High' or 'Good Vibrations' ? Yet many would agree that although a lot of Dylan's songs only realised their potential in being covered, the 'song' was still evident, even with his crude delivery. Different types of songs make for different rules in my opinion. Therefore, I think Kafla is both right and wrong. I think that what he says is true for his type of writing but not for everyone's.
Back to review styles. I think that the most honest thing that anyone can do is to say what their first impressions are when they hear a piece - whether these are artistic, musical or technical. However, sometimes your first impression is 'I hate this' - and that's not a very helpful feeling to share! Someone mentioned intent earlier on- and what I usually try to do is to judge how successful someone has been at achieving whatever it is that I think they intended. To this end I have given many positive reviews to stuff I don't like at all because I think it works under it's own terms. Occasionally, on the other hand, I've got a bit pissed and been grumpy about everything ... hey, we are human after all.
The whole ethos of the review system probably warps perspective. Mostly, because they want to contribute, people are looking for something to say, as opposed to being 'moved' to say something - and that often doesn't constitute a very natural opinion. People will often gravitate towards saying something that sounds reasonable, but isn't their actual emotional response (which was possibly 'I hate this' ... lol). I wonder how many reviews there would be if people only posted when they really wanted to comment - even though they conscientiously listened to say, 10 songs a week. I have to say that I for one have been occasionally 'moved' to say something about the production when I've had nothing useful to say about the song ...
Ultimately, I think you have to accept it's necessarily flawed and I think that the best answer - if you don't want technical comments, is to say so when you post the song. Then those that have only those to offer can move on to the next posting.
-
That all sounds about right to me :)
-
Feck it must be bad if Lee is playing peacemaker ;) Only joking mate - how are you?
Agree with what you write Carl - you always talk a lot of sense - unless you are pissed ???
Yeah I realise that some songs are written through the production - you start with a beat, synth line etc and sing over the top of it
I am all for discussing production from the instrument point of view and maybe the mix & effects at a high level but just leave the detailed techie speak for the recording section. Perhaps we could even take these micro discussions to there anyway.
So my compromise is lets have the production talk at a high level but more focus on the songwriting in reviews as well.
Not to set that in stone as its not that kind of forum - more an aspiration ;D
-
Carl makes great points and agree with them.
I've just started making some proper reviews again after a few weeks/months of being out of it and I just wanted to throw something up that I noticed a bit.
I try to make my reviews constructive. When I dont like a bit of songwriting or a certain part, I try to say why. What I notice is that when I make comments like this about songwriting, a lot of the time people will go on the defensive...some people just don't want to be told that something doesn't work.
I know it is not true for all and especially not some of the older members who can take everything on the chin and appreciate some criticism. But having just 1 or 2 people backfire like that affects you as a reviewer. It makes you less willing to be so 'honest' and write some inane comment about the song.
People don't get so uptight about 'technical' comments...can this be a reason why we/I sometimes wrongly slip into concentrating on this?
There are people who post songs and are after a pat on the back... I just wish they would write in their thread that they want that! Then I would know when I should just ignore a song :D
-
Good point also Ram. There are some who take critisism better than others :)
Personally I'm thankful for mixing/technical advice as well as all other critisisms.
It's helped me to improve on that side of things.
Kaf - That's all I've ever been ::)
-
Good point also Ram. There are some who take critisism better than others :)
Personally I'm thankful for mixing/technical advice as well as all other critisisms.
It's helped me to improve on that side of things.
Kaf - That's all I've ever been ::)
Ha ha Schavu - you are a top man!
And I agree 100% RS
Another manauovere I dislike it the six song shuffle comeback - let me explain - you have a song you want reviewed but haven't been on for a while so you half heartedly review 6 songs then post yours :-\
Or the old - I haven't got time just now go review other songs ( but I have time to post my song ???) but promise to come back next Julaugust and review some songs :-*
I am being light hearted here before I get lynched :o
-
It's maybe also worth pointing out that reviewing isn't the only form of contributing to the forum. I've come on here a few times and felt I had nothing useful to add in the reviews, so I've tried to help on guitar or recording questions.
-
Totally agree with that estreet
And I also think collaborations are a big part as well - you have kindly layed some neat guitar parts done for me
I have worked on many songs with members and and will continue to do so
But guys like Boydie, Dutchbeat and Paul really embody the spirit of the forum with the joint outputs !