Review Criteria

[srvenable]

(don't know where else to post this question -- didn't want to clutter up the reviews)

What criteria do you use/consider appropriate when reviewing songs.

I would see at one end of the spectrum - "the song only. Lyrics and music. Don't let the performance or recording quality color your judgement."

On the other end -- "it's all one package. Performances, recording quality, lyrics, music, backing vocals, vocal quality, everything."

Just curious.

Stu

[Caravan Ray]

How long is a piece of string?

[john m]

It's entirely up to the reviewer, which is kinda the neat thing: everyone here provides a different view of your song.

(Whenever I'm not too lazy to do reviews,) I try to review mostly based on the actual songwriting. However, I will sometimes point out flaws focused solely on the recording/production aspect. Being a musician who makes the best out of a truly horrendous recording setup, I think it's too easy an excuse to blame your uninteresting song on your lack of funds/equipment. Sure, there's a limit to what you can do with two Radio Shack microphones, a multipurpose effects pedal, a 1/4" -> 1/8" converter, and pirated music software, but I think I've managed to make it work at least decently; there's no reason others shouldn't be able to produce something passable, no matter their situation.

And of course some people (15-16 Puzzle) write songs so great they transcend poor recording quality.

Anyway. That's pretty much my take on it.

[erik]

What criteria do you use/consider appropriate when reviewing songs

How much (or little) money would I pay to have a CD of similar sounding music?

If this band was playing this song in a bar (or coffeehouse or warehouse or houseparty), would I be interested in moving closer to hear them better?

How many more times do I want to hear this song again?

[Caravan Ray]

What criteria do you use/consider appropriate when reviewing songs

How much (or little) money would I pay to have a CD of similar sounding music?

If this band was playing this song in a bar (or coffeehouse or warehouse or houseparty), would I be interested in moving closer to hear them better?

How many more times do I want to hear this song again?

I like these suggestions. The scientist in me appreciates the quantitative approach. Particularly the 2nd one - when I review this week, I may try measure each song in metres.

[j$]

yeah, it's the radio thing for me - not production-wise (i try and take into account the limited resources of many musicians, myself included) but if I think 'If i heard this on an indie station for the first time, would it make me rush out and buy it?' generally speaking if the answer is yes, then that's a vote.

Reviewing style-wise. I try 1. to be helpful. 2. If i can't be helpful to at least make someone smile. Ideally it would be a combination of the two. more often than not it's neither!

j$

[jack]

personally, i'm more of a production guy with reviews. like john m mentioned, i try not to let mediocre or bad production cloud my opinion of a good song or songwriter, but it can be a dealbreaker too. i generally don't follow lyrics that closely, i get hooked by hooks, and love fat gratuitous guitar solos that are played well (i.e pompeii). i'm also a sucker for people who write and record outside the normal genres (like sober, future boy, and octothorpe). and if you use a kazoo, i'll most likely give you a good review. i try not to be too mean, but if i am mean, i at least attempt to be funny about it enough to reflect that my remarks should only be taken with a grain of salt. and i say "i dig it" alot.

[Kamakura]

Note to self: buy a Kazoo.

[Hoblit]

personally, i'm more of a production guy with reviews. like john m mentioned, i try not to let mediocre or bad production cloud my opinion of a good song or songwriter, but it can be a dealbreaker too. i generally don't follow lyrics that closely, i get hooked by hooks, and love fat gratuitous guitar solos that are played well (i.e pompeii). i'm also a sucker for people who write and record outside the normal genres (like sober, future boy, and octothorpe). and if you use a kazoo, i'll most likely give you a good review. i try not to be too mean, but if i am mean, i at least attempt to be funny about it enough to reflect that my remarks should only be taken with a grain of salt. and i say "i dig it" alot.

Jack described both of us.

[Mac]

How long is a piece of string?

23

[king_arthur]

For me, the first cut is "keepers" and "not keepers," and a keeper is a song that I'd want to hear again if I pointed winamp at my songfight directory. Lyrics, music, performance, production and style all enter into that with "performance" maybe having the most influence in the end. Also, I've usually made up my mind on a song within the first 30 seconds or so.

Dumb lyrics, out of tune vocals or guitars, _distorted_ vocals, unintentionally irregular rhythms and "musical styles I don't like" are the most likely things to eliminate a song as a keeper for me.

When it comes to picking a "vote" from among the keepers, most of the time what it comes down to is: after I've listened to all the songs, which one is still playing in my head? Down With Gender's song in the "Ain't Gettin' Any" fight isn't the sort of thing I usually like, and I think we were all annoyed at them for friend flooding the week before or something, but after listening to the whole fight, that was the one I remembered (and actually still remember now).

Charles

[roymond]

And of course some people (15-16 Puzzle) write songs so great they transcend poor recording quality.

Nice

[EightLeggedOedipus]

Wow, awesome thread.

For 90% of songs the killer is bad vocals. Usually it's melody, phrasing or especially intonation. Some voices and some genres are much more forgiving than others, but if you are going for pop, jazz, or rock I'll be very picky on the singing. If anything will distract me from liking a song, it's that feeling I can't identify with the protagonist/narrator because he's a dork.

After that I usually look at production. I like to review on production becuase I think this is usually where people can make the most drastic improvement in their total output. You can't steal talent and you can't buy experience. You can't learn creativity too well. But you CAN buy new equipment, and learn how to work it. You can change settings, and add effects. The biggest key though, is how learning how to produce/mix/edit will help you WRITE songs. J$'s comment to me this week was spot on. Thank you. (BTW, Johnny, I dig the More Attractive track from SOL)

I enjoy being mean in reviews, although I try to also be helpful and possibly funny (rare).

I may be more forgiving in genres I generally like, but I can recognize good in almost anything. King Arthur's "Truth ABout Aspartame" still sits really well with me, and I can find that chorus going through my head often.

Ultimately, the greatest honor I personally can bestow is to become a fan. Carol Cleveland Sings, Dylan Nau, Josh Woodward, Deshead, and now Frankie Big Face are all ones where I've gone back through their websites and archives for more tracks to listen to at my own personal leisure. There's a much longer list of guys to check out still.

[JonPorobil]

Well, I've always found it strange that people would want to isolate "production values" and "songwriting." True, they could be one great and the other awful in a single song, but we're not looking at scores here. We listening to finished recordings. If the production has problems, I don't hesistate to point them out. I try not to let the production bias my take on the song, though (and it has, sometimes. Andrew Ayers' "Happy Machine Ankle" was a really good song, though I got hung up on a hiss in the mix).

In the end, it's usually a matter of "Does it sound good? Do I want to listen again? If not, why not? What sounds right and what sounds wrong?" If it doesn't sound good, I usually consider it a bad song... though there are times, I suppose, where something sounds intentionally cacophonous or bad, but that somehow serves a higher purpose in the song - in which case I probably won't want to listen again, but I'll acknowledge that you done well.

This is all theoretical; I might come back and bite you if I'm in a bad mood.

[Dan-O from Five-O]

I probably shouldn't weigh in on this because I haven't written any reviews for awhile except a sidefight I was in, but I will anyway. I've always tried to maintain that this site is called "Song Fight", not "Production Fight" or "Mix Fight". Without a doubt, a bad mix or inferior equipment can alter your perception of a song. I don't remember the song or the artist but there was one review I wrote where there was just this incredibly loud hum going on. It simply was impossible to overlook. On the other hand, I think it was Jute Gyte that submitted a song that was basically a slightly out of tune piano and a less than stellar vocal that sounded like it had been recorded on an old '70's cassette recorder with a built in condensor mic, but I liked the song. I got past the production values.

Josh Woodward always submits stellar mixes, backed by good songs of course. However, sometimes I find myself so focused on the "How the hell does he do that?" aspect of his production that it takes another listen and more focus to get to the heart of the song. But I also think that Josh's ability as a producer / engineer clouds his reviews. I've made no bones about it, I think he regularly writes off a person's work if he deems the mix substandard and I just don't think that's the right approach. In the same manner I give Josh's song a second and third listen while writing my review, I will give the same consideration to a poorly mixed song. For me, the "Do I want to listen to it again?" rule doesn't apply because I usually listen to every song several times so I can find the points I liked or didn't like and at least try to write a fair review.

As others have said, if it's just a stupid Fruity Loops mix with the title of the song repeated as the "lyrics", I move on. I'll write some pretty mean stuff sometimes, and I try to be comical about it if I'm in the mood. Other times you just can't help telling someone how bad it pissed you off that they subjected you to that crap. I'm on a modem, and I can't stream the songs so I have to download them. The amount of time I spend downloading songs compounded by the time it takes to write a review definitely will effect my review when I hit a real turd. It's then that I can't hold back.

Lastly I try not to have genre bias, but like any other bias all of us have, it's difficult not to let that weigh in on a review. I try to view every genre evenly. I like to think we all do, but I'm not naive and I know people will have those preconceptions that will skew their reviews.

[joshw]

But I also think that Josh's ability as a producer / engineer clouds his reviews.

I agree, I factor production in more than most. But when it comes down to it, a good song is a good song and will come through unless you really try to hide it. One of the CDs that's been getting the most playtime lately is Iron & Wine's "Our Endless Numbered Years". The production is really quite horrible, but the songs are so good that it doesn't matter.

Very few reviewers touch on production all that much, so to some extent I overdo it for the sake of balance. Even though I tend to pick on production issues more in my reviews than most, the songwriting is the main thing I vote on. Production and performance are for the most part tiebreakers for me if the song quality is the same for two songs. Occasionally I'll vote for a song that's total ear candy, even if there's not much of a song behind it (Lemon Party comes to mind), but that's the minority.

[thehipcola]

I dunno, you take an average guy and guitar song, use "production" to add strings, bass, drums, harmonies, maybe re-arrange it, record it differently and well, and it is totally and completely different, and possibly becoming unbelievably good in the process. It most certainly can allow it to appeal to a different listenership than it would have as a barebones GandG song, and what else determines a "good" song, if not those who listen and like?

Production not something you can whip out and spread across a song. It's part of the process, like it or not. 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.

In an age where SO much music has been written, so many "good" songs have already been penned and "produced", who's to say anymore? Production can take what you think is a piece of crap and let it sell millions. It can also kill what MIGHT have been a great song.

Don't discount the value of production people. Step up to the plate and swing. It's all part of the same game. It figures mighty big in my reviewing as well.

My $.02, for what they are worth...(which almost certainly isn't $.02..being from Canada and all...)

[Caravan Ray]

But I also think that Josh's ability as a producer / engineer clouds his reviews.

Very few reviewers touch on production all that much, so to some extent I overdo it for the sake of balance.

I've noticed that, and I've always appreciated it. JW has proven himself to be someone who knows what he's doing production-wise - so his opinion is always valuable in that respect.

Personally, I try to avoid commenting on production or drum sounds or guitar tones etc - I might know what I like - but I really don't know why. I usually restrict my critical comments to vocals and lyric - things I understand better.

[erik]

Don't discount the value of production people.

Why not, you've discounted the value of songwriting. Different people like different things. Not everyone has to care about production.

[thehipcola]

..not everyone has to care about production

(sigh...)- but they should . imo.

and unfortunately, those who don't are reviewed appropriately by myself and others. Without concern for production, one is possibly eliminating some potential audience who don't care about the "core" beauty of a song that's there, if it's there, because they can't hear it over the noise-floor and booming of a badly recorded acoustic guitar. However, if your goal is only to reach those people who like things unpolished, who appreciate, like your devil's advocate, work that is overly simple, sparsly or poorly voiced instrument-wise, amateruishly arranged as the writer was too stubborn to consider re-working it after it was written, mixed in 5 minutes, etc...then power to you. Run with it. My opinion of that person's song will reflect their lack of consideration toward the final version of their song and how it sounds.. But, hey...that's just me. And sure, every once in awhile a gorgeous piece of music is recorded that needs nothing. It happens...once in awhile.


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.

Love the varied responses in this thread...keep it up. Perspective is something gained by exploration.

[j$]

A great song will shine through shoddy production. A weak song can not be saved by great production.

Obviously it is part of the song-writing craft; I consider production to be another 'instrument' - when used well, they can bring a new dimension. When used badly they can distract 'n' distract.

but just like if I hear someone who plays a guitarline sloppily, I try not to hold that against the guitar part itself if it is interesting and imaginative, so I will not hold production values against an interesting and imaginative song.

Of course, the worse the production the harder it usually is to appreciate/notice those interesting and imaginative parts ....

j$

[Mogosagatai]

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.

Production is definitely an issue; it's just a matter of how much production is necessary to let the song shine through. Some songs don't take much, but that also doesn't mean that better production couldn't help.

There's also such thing as an overly produced song--one that might be considered "sterile" or "too crisp".