Can we please get multiple titles again?

bz£ · Post by **bz£** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 4:04 pm

The acronym is oddly appropriate.

fluffy · Post by **fluffy** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 4:22 pm

This thread has certainly gone in a direction I was hoping to avoid.

If other people want to spaz out about alternatives to the current system which would require a hell of a lot of work on the admins' parts or major site overhauls or whatever, that's fine I guess, but I was really hoping to just see how much support there was for going back to a short-term alternative which actually works.

Reist · Post by **Reist** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 5:28 pm

Yeah - let's just bring back multiple fight titles.

Steve Durand · Post by **Steve Durand** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 5:38 pm

erik wrote:
Lord of Oats wrote:I agree with Steve on this. What's exciting about sitting around and waiting for the title? It's like Christmas when you're a kid. It can never come soon enough.
I know! When I was a kid, Christmas was totally unexciting. All that waiting and wondering, fuck that. It would have been so much more exciting if I got the gifts unwrapped as soon as they were bought.

Well, I can pretty much count on Christmas happening on December 25th and not having to wait and see if it's going to be on the 27th or January 3rd or something.

The anticipation that I like about Songfight! is wondering what the title will be, not when it will be.

Steve

fluffy · Post by **fluffy** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 5:40 pm

Song Fight has been running for about 7 years without any consistency in this regard whatsoever. If you're not used to it by now then I'm not sure what I can say.

Steve Durand · Post by **Steve Durand** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:08 pm

fluffy wrote:Song Fight has been running for about 7 years without any consistency in this regard whatsoever. If you're not used to it by now then I'm not sure what I can say.

Oh I'm plenty used to it. It hasn't stopped me from participating. I was just responding to Roymond's idea that not knowing when the title was coming out was a good thing. I disagree, that's all.

Steve

Ross · Post by **Ross** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:21 pm

fluffy wrote:Song Fight has been running for about 7 years without any consistency in this regard whatsoever. If you're not used to it by now then I'm not sure what I can say.

Seems to me the same is true about the outcomes of having single titles - it has certainly been that way a long time, and I can't speak for Steve, but I know i am used to these things, but as long as we're posting about changes we think would improve the participation - tighter timing may be one of those things.

I try not to complain - because I know the FMs are doing this volunteer for the love of the sport - but around the time I started here (and Steve, too) the timing was pretty good. I can remember days when the song was due at 10:00 and all three areas of the site were updated by 10:15 or so. I feel like it used to be long to wait two days, now it is longer than that much of the time. I assume that relates to changes in the lives/workload of the FMs. For me I feel like it affects the momentum of my energy for both reviewing and writing. All in all, I feel like the FMs know that there are a bunch of us out here that would like to have multiple titles, and have decided for now not to.
Too much explanation, probably. I guess really I just wanted to respond to the "Just get used to it" response, since it seems contradictory to the theme of the thread.

EDIT: I also have no plans to cease participating due to any of these issues.

fluffy · Post by **fluffy** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:36 pm

Fights have not been consistently 30+ entries for 7 years. When things were getting bad, the fights got split into multiple titles, which helped a lot. Then fights got small again due to the usual seasonal variation in participation and it went back to a single fight. Then presumably for some reason Spud has been hesitant to split them again (I think I know the reason but it's more or less immaterial to both cause and effect).

The actual count/timing/number of fights has historically varied quite a lot (especially in the early days, when it was e.g. one week of composition and one week of voting). But the underlying mechanism of the site has been completely the same, the only major change in that regard being when Narbotic switched from invitation-only to open fights.

The one major thing that has changed and then remained is that in the very early days, people didn't review the songs; there was just some casual general discussion of the fights as a whole but until The Shortcakes posted about every song in Shipwreck, nobody thought to actually do that. And that change was definitely beneficial for the community and the site; before that point it was an artsy statement on music and interpretation, but after that it became an actual COMMUNITY. That is something I definitely don't want to lose. The voting could turn into a random number generator for all I care (which is all it is now anyway), but if we lose reviews, we lose the community, and this site just becomes a way for people to compose crappy music and have it posted on the Internet at someone else's expense.

Steve Durand · Post by **Steve Durand** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:45 pm

I think that maybe one way to encourage reviews would be to post the current batch of songs and then wait a couple of days to post the new title. I get the feeling that as soon as the title is out many people switch their attention to writing a new song.

This is what Niveous did on Nur Ein and it definitely facilitated listening to the songs for me.

Steve

Ross · Post by **Ross** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 7:03 pm

fluffy wrote:stuff.

I get all that, but you did prompt me to go look, and the last few three-title fights before the current standard of one-per-fight were pretty full and had a total of more than 25 fighters a week. So it doesn't seem to me that the title/participant thing is a supply/demand regulatory measure.

That being actually neither here nor there. I have fun here. If we were voting I'd vote for more titles - but we're not. I also agree that more titles would probably improve the review frequency.

I also agree with Steve that if there was a lag between the songs and the next title, it would probably increase listening. But I don't think I'd support that in the current timing scenario.

bz£ · Post by **bz£** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 7:07 pm

Songfight "reviews" are almost always useless. When someone says that they want more reviews, what they really want is usually more people to say "yes, I listened to your song." And that's good, because a review usually says little more.

If you really want more people to listen to your songs (I would) then smaller fights is a no-brainer. Smaller fights are a consequence of multiple titles. It's not the only way, by any means, but it is one way that works.

jack · Post by **jack** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 7:10 pm

dismissing reviews as useless is pretty dickish.

maybe you feel that way. i'll keep that in mind next time i do reviews.

fluffy · Post by **fluffy** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 7:11 pm

Songfight reviews tend to be useless only because the fights are so large that people don't bother to say anything useful anymore. Most reviews are always going to be crappy BUT on smaller fights, more of the reviews are non-crappy.

bz£ · Post by **bz£** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 7:18 pm

Yeah, I'm a dick, but that's not really the point. And you might have more to say than "This reminds me of Band-youve-never-heard-of, I rate it a 6.3" but most people don't.

jack · Post by **jack** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 7:37 pm

bz£ wrote:Yeah, I'm a dick, but that's not really the point. And you might have more to say than "This reminds me of Band-youve-never-heard-of, I rate it a 6.3" but most people don't.

well ok, and i see your point, and i'm not saying you're a dick.

but i'm saying set a good example if it's such a problem for you. reviews aren't mandatory, and nobody should feel obligated to do them. and like the songs themselves, reviews can be an art form too if you take the time and put the effort in. just like the songs being reviewed, there's going to be a signal to noise issue with reviews.

to dismiss the efforts made by those that put the time and effort in is no different than the dismissive reviews you're complaining about.

bz£ · Post by **bz£** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 7:49 pm

Yeah, I'll accept that I could do more. And I might if the fights weren't so large and painful to listen to...

Billy's Little Trip · Post by **Billy's Little Trip** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:36 pm

king_arthur wrote: Umm... how about ideas for getting more and better reviews?

Charles (KA)

You are stuck in that "real good" musician rut. It's weird to say, but you're too good (not for me personally). Your songs are flawless, from the lyrics and musicianship, to the recording and engineering. You are appreciated and respected by other musicians. You're too good too allow yourself to not be perfect. You my friend, are easy listening.
This is that point in a musicians life (famous or not), that they either keep doing what they have been doing, and find their target audience, or they become writers and record producers. Glen Ballard comes to mind. He was around 60 when you built the Alanis Morissette machine.
I think you've already started down a new path by collaborating with other members here. I really like your Wages collabs. He's that looseness that dirties up your perfection, in a great way of course.

I think that if you are trying to get more and better reviews "here" at song fight, I'd say stay on the path of collabs. The majority of the members here, including myself, seem to enjoy listening to members getting together. A big part of it is because I think we all know how difficult it is to organize and put a "decent" song together with multiple players.

Disclaimer, I've had a few Bacardi and Cokes, so I may be just talking a bunch of crap here.
I love you King!

Reist · Post by **Reist** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:11 pm

Billy's Little Trip wrote:Disclaimer, I've had a few Bacardi and Cokes, so I may be just talking a bunch of crap here.

... so why did you write it?

I'd just like to say that it's fine that the FMs don't post it right after the title comes out - that's what I do with the radnoise frenzies, and it's really stressful. It makes you feel like you need to take a certain part of the week and dedicate it to the cause, which is tough when you have any sort of life. It would be nice to get the stuff posted right away, but it's up to them - if they feel like it, great! If not, then whatever ... why is it a problem? Go and practice your guitar instead of playing on the computer. And I guess BLT can go and drink.

king_arthur · Post by **king_arthur** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:36 pm

BLT - well, what I meant was "better" reviews, as in "more meaningful and useful" reviews, for everybody. As in, uhh, go back and see Fluffy's original post for the thread.

And, yeah, I know, most of the ideas I came up with would be a whole lot of work for the FMs, but it seemed like we were kinda stuck on the idea that the only way to get better reviews was to have multiple fights so that there were fewer songs per fight so that people would be more likely to tackle doing reviews. I was just trying to suggest that maybe there are other causes, other things we could try, and that maybe some of the creative minds around here could come up with some additional ideas.

Charles (KA)

Caravan Ray · Post by **Caravan Ray** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:42 pm

bz£ wrote: "This reminds me of Band-youve-never-heard-of, I rate it a 6.3"

That's exacly the type of review I like actually. It gives a good idea of how you sound through other peoples ears (you can always Google the band you'vre never heard of).

When short for time - like this week (I promise I will do And Counting soon) - I at least like to list the songs in my order of preference. I think it is important to let the people know whether you liked their song or didn't like their song. Why I did or didn't like it is less important.

fluffy · Post by **fluffy** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 1:51 am

Ross wrote:
fluffy wrote:stuff.
I get all that, but you did prompt me to go look, and the last few three-title fights before the current standard of one-per-fight were pretty full and had a total of more than 25 fighters a week. So it doesn't seem to me that the title/participant thing is a supply/demand regulatory measure.

Key phrase: A TOTAL of more than 25. But each fight was individually more manageable.

There's a mental hurdle to be overcome when there's 25 songs to review, but when there's only 10 songs to review in a set of songs, it's much easier to get around to them. Also, there's no pressure for people to review all the songs, either.

3 fights of 10 will have a LOT more total reviews than 1 fight of 30, and also the coverage will be much better, as will the quality of the reviews. In the most recent fight, how many people started reviewing the first half of the entries and then gave up halfway through? The people in the second half of the alphabet feel pretty shitty as a result. And if you just review the songs you like, then the people you didn't like will feel pretty shitty.

Simply expecting people to just review a random selection of 10 out of that 30-song fight and hoping that there's enough coverage is just plain lame. People aren't good at making random subselections, and if people were to select 10 at random, the other 20 people will wonder why the hell THOSE 10 got picked.

Do you see what I'm getting at here?

erik · Post by **erik** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:00 am

jack wrote:but i'm saying set a good example if it's such a problem for you. reviews aren't mandatory, and nobody should feel obligated to do them. and like the songs themselves, reviews can be an art form too if you take the time and put the effort in. just like the songs being reviewed, there's going to be a signal to noise issue with reviews.

This is all true, but if no one felt obligated to do reviews, then a 30-song fight wouldn't be a bad thing at all. No one *should* feel obligated to do reviews, but you have to admit that lots of people are obligated to do so, partly because of how whiny (some) people get over the quantity (but rarely the quality) of reviews.