One Two: Songs n' Votes - The Reviews

Eric Y. · Post by **Eric Y.** » Thu May 04, 2006 12:56 pm

granted, nobody went over. but (hence my reference to "the price is right") if your song is 0:57 and somebody else's is 1:00 exactly, you did not come as close to a minute as possible. so all those who were exactly 1:00 were in the running for first place, having eliminated the less-close-to-one-minute-without-going-over competition. natch?

sorry heather if you felt this is unfair, but i'm not the one who made up the rules. (and apparently my one vote didn't make much difference either way anyhow).

Heather. Redmon. · Post by **Heather. Redmon.** » Thu May 04, 2006 5:23 pm

That's ok TVIYH, I just know the guy who wrote the rules, and I believe they were more of a theme for entering songs, not for judging/reviewing/voting disqualification.

I'm not one to talk as I never had time to review. I did enjoy all of the songs (there were maybe 2 that were less than enjoyable to me).

The only song I feel might be "disqualified" for not following the rules is Stueym's since it is his Peppermint Patty entry and not based on One Two. I did enjoy the song though so whatever...

Dan-O from Five-O · Post by **Dan-O from Five-O** » Thu May 04, 2006 8:07 pm

tviyh wrote:granted, nobody went over. but (hence my reference to "the price is right") if your song is 0:57 and somebody else's is 1:00 exactly, you did not come as close to a minute as possible. so all those who were exactly 1:00 were in the running for first place, having eliminated the less-close-to-one-minute-without-going-over competition.

Sorry man, I didn't get what you were saying the first time. It makes sense now, but I agree with Heather also. You shouldn't "eliminate" a song from consideration of your vote because it came in at a couple of seconds or less than exactly one minute.

I know where you're coming from about rules and all, but rules can be broken or bent with no harm done.

HeuristicsInc · Post by **HeuristicsInc** » Thu May 04, 2006 8:28 pm

Dan-O from Five-O wrote:You shouldn't "eliminate" a song from consideration of your vote

Last I checked, it was his vote we were discussing and he can use any darn criteria he wants for his vote

Seriously!
-bill

Eric Y. · Post by **Eric Y.** » Fri May 05, 2006 12:28 am

dear heather: for what it's worth, your song and phil's were certainly among the best here, and they probably would have been in or near the top five, but i stand by my vote regardless of the length anyway. thanks for not taking it too seriously (some people seem to tend to do this around here).

dear bill: thank you!

dear dan-o: once upon a time i decided to listen to only the first ten seconds of all the songs in a particular fight, and review only the first ten seconds of all the songs, and vote for the song with the best first ten seconds. DON'T YOU OPRESS ME MAN!!

Heather. Redmon. · Post by **Heather. Redmon.** » Fri May 05, 2006 4:07 am

Thanks for clarifying tivyh. And thanks for liking our songs!

I'm really not trying to pick fights with anyone, Bill. You're right, he can vote how he wants to vote, etc.

Treachjuris · Post by **Treachjuris** » Fri May 05, 2006 7:58 am

Voice of the People Representing the Anal Front:
Um. I modified my tune to meet the specs of the particular Fight!. I'll take a technical win, if I am anal enough to scrunch that shit down to 99.98 seconds. That's some MAD SKILLZ!

While I totally dig that the law is don't go over; I also respect a more technically stringent criteria to be applied to one individual's vote. To me, that's completely more respectful and justifiable a means than the "I don't like <insert genre/style here> so Imma ignore that piece altogether" form of entry evaluation.

Just my opinion. We all got 'em. Ain't it grand?

j$ · Post by j$ » Fri May 05, 2006 8:54 am

Yep, TVIYH is more than welcome to his reviewing technique - but we are entitled to question his rationale. The 10 second approach is interesting - it's all about impact - but what use is the exclusion?

Also that's a bad comparision, because with the 10 second reviews, TVIYH reviewed them all.

Also, it seems a bit arbitrary considering WMP reads anything over 1:00.05 as as 1:01 and yet anything between 59:00.01 and 59:00:99 as 0:59. I dunno about other players, but it kind of renders the exercise as moot.

j$

starfinger · Post by **starfinger** » Fri May 05, 2006 2:31 pm

Treachjuris wrote:I'll take a technical win, if I am anal enough to scrunch that shit down to 99.98 seconds. That's some MAD SKILLZ!

uh, that's like 39.98 seconds too long. are you on metric time or something?

Treachjuris · Post by **Treachjuris** » Fri May 05, 2006 4:38 pm

I never professed to be a mathemagician.