The Song Fight Bulletin Board

People at songfight are not listening past production values to find gems. They are listening to completed songs to see if they like them or not, as is. Songs with poor production values make have a chance to fight, but they do not have a fighting chance.

anti-m wrote:
Someone recently submitted a song that literally sounded as though it had been sung acappella into an answering machine… but many folks commented that they could hear a hidden catchy poppiness in the song.

Did it win?

erikb wrote:
People at songfight are not listening past production values to find gems. They are listening to completed songs to see if they like them or not, as is. Songs with poor production values make have a chance to fight, but they do not have a fighting chance.

My point exactly.

Yeah, but here's a little secret I'm going to let you in on: Winning at songfight is metarecursive. All it proves is that you can make a song that the people at songfight will want to vote for. It doesn't mean you're a better songwriter, or a better producer, or a better anything-of-importance. It means you are better at winning at songfight than someone who has won less times than you.

Don't get all squirreled up about whether songs with pristine production values have a better chance of winning, because it doesn't really matter.




*Disclaimer: I was for a while the losingest SFer in SF history.

fodroy wrote:nmh's production is perfect, imo. perfect.

of course it is. NOW. But if you had heard a polished version of it first, I bet you would hate the unpolished version. It's all relative to your experience.

kill_me_sarah wrote: Actually, I don't know that I ever made reference to Lennon originally.

Oops, sorry. At least you agreed with the other part of my post!

erikb wrote:*Disclaimer: I was for a while the losingest SFer in SF history.

I intend to break your record.

frankie big face wrote:

fodroy wrote:nmh's production is perfect, imo. perfect.

of course it is. NOW. But if you had heard a polished version of it first, I bet you would hate the unpolished version. It's all relative to your experience.

honestly, i've heard polished albums and then heard demos of albums, and i preferred the demos. they had a certain raw energy to them that grabbed me more than the album.

it's not a good argument because i can't remember who it was, but whatever. maybe, i'm just an exception to the good production preference.

kill_me_sarah wrote:

anti-m wrote:
Someone recently submitted a song that literally sounded as though it had been sung acappella into an answering machine… but many folks commented that they could hear a hidden catchy poppiness in the song.

Did it win?

No, but it got 14 votes, putting it in third place.

http://www.songfight.org/songpage.php?k ... ree_speech

Do people honestly care that much about the voting part of songfight? It seems to me that the voting is secondary to the critical feedback from the boards. Voting can be skewed by friend-flooding, etc.

anti-m wrote:It seems to me that the voting is secondary to the critical feedback from the boards.

Duck!

deshead wrote:

anti-m wrote:It seems to me that the voting is secondary to the critical feedback from the boards.

Duck!

Why?

anti-m wrote:

deshead wrote:

anti-m wrote:It seems to me that the voting is secondary to the critical feedback from the boards.

Duck!

Why?

Because we're about to yell at you.

Song Fight isn't about the reviews. It's about the songs. It's about the fight. Song Fight went along quite well for at least a year before anyone thought to "review" anything.

Some people would stop submitting if there were no reviews on the boards. I'm not one of them. <b>Fuck the reviews.</b> I'm here to (occasionally) write songs and put them somewhere that a few people may listen to them. And to kill all y'all's asses at the same time. You don't have to win to kick ass, either. But occasionally, you'll kick SO MUCH ASS that even the friends of other bands can't help but vote for you.

JB

Especially when reviews are so subjective...

kill_me_sarah wrote:
anti-m wrote:


Someone recently submitted a song that literally sounded as though it had been sung acappella into an answering machine… but many folks commented that they could hear a hidden catchy poppiness in the song.



Did it win?




No, but it got 14 votes, putting it in third place.

http://www.songfight.org/songpage.php?k ... ree_speech

Do people honestly care that much about the voting part of songfight? It seems to me that the voting is secondary to the critical feedback from the boards. Voting can be skewed by friend-flooding, etc.

ah, E Equals if I remember. and it was Britney-tastic

anti-m wrote:

deshead wrote:

anti-m wrote:It seems to me that the voting is secondary to the critical feedback from the boards.

Duck!

Why?

ha, but seriously, I like getting votes but it's way more fun seeing the Songfight community digging your song, or at least giving some constructive comments so you can improve.

jb wrote:

anti-m wrote:

deshead wrote: Duck!

Why?

Because we're about to yell at you.

You don't have to win to kick ass, either. JB

Oh, well, by all means yell away! -- But this whole "you don't have to win to kick ass" business is more or less exactly what I'm saying.

Personally, I didn't enter into the songfight arena to win. I entered to share some songs, (kick ass? I dunno... I like them, but I'm biased) and bounce ideas off of what seems to be a cool group of people with some useful things to say about the making of music.

Don't get me wrong, I like the fight! But the reviews are the most fun portion of the songfight world for me. Sorry if that makes me a giant hippy / girly girl / whathaveyou.

tonetripper wrote:Especially when reviews are so subjective...

How, exactly, is a vote any less subjective?

Less descriptive, yes... but less subjective? I think you're kidding yourself if you think that the votes are depicting some sort of objective scale of the quality of a song.

I mean, look at the results of our last presidential election.

Jim of Seattle wrote:
The Four Types of Bad Songs
1. Poorly written songs
2. Poorly executed songs
3. Failed experiments by otherwise competent people
4. Just screwing around at our expense

You forgot the most important one.

5. Songs I don't like

There's plenty of well written, well executed songs done by competent people seriously in the style to which they are best suited which I simply don't like.

A song may fall into any one, or even two of your categories 1 to 4 and still come out as a pretty good song that I may want to listen to again.

If it's in category 5 though, it's a bad song.

naaaa ..... come to kick some ass...... it feels good to kick some ass at Songfight! even when the views of fellow songfighters don't line up with the voting, but I have to agree with JB in the fact that when you really kick ass you really get the votes.........

See Dylan Nau, Carol Cleveland Sings, Deshead, Puce,Josh Woodward..... oh the list goes on......

How, exactly, is a vote any less subjective?

Less descriptive, yes... but less subjective? I think you're kidding yourself if you think that the votes are depicting some sort of objective scale of the quality of a song.

I mean, look at the results of our last presidential election.

As is somewhat alluded to (that being my interpretation) by Caravan Ray sometimes a review can hinge a person's criticism of a a song by the reviewer's own personal tastes. I was being emphatic by using the word "so". Meaning they are not "less" per se, but I've read many a review on SF that has more the reviewer's tastes in reference to the song being criticized than whether or not it's a good song. Also, contrarily I have read reviews that you can kind of go "Hmmm I totally get where they are coming from..." which could be considered "less" subjective or just objective.

Semantics aside there are many sides that one could take out of Songfighting. Reviews aren't everything, votes aren't everything, but the pure fact that you create something within a deadline and it's accessible to perfect strangers is probably more the point. But when a song kicks, the community at large votes accordingly and probably reviews accordingly.

This ofcourse isn't always the case.

... ofcourse I'm Canadian and just went through an election where we have a more right wing Conservative in power

It seems to me that the whole topic of good/bad songs contains some elusive ... elements I suppose.
I have times when I listen ...well, actually, the majority of the time, where I feel conflicted about every single tune I hear. There's a part of me that loves EVERY single one, for the effort, the desire to communicate SOMETHING in music. Things I'd never think of, things I 'd never try. Someone else does.
There are things that I can hate in some songs, often while liking something else.
I'm gonna review this weeks' fights (deep breath) with one word answers. Good or Bad. Despite if there is something I like, or an element that ... hell, ...hmmm. Not sure what word is best for the middle...cause "mediocre" may be too negative... "average" too good. Fuck it, four words. Good, average, medicore, bad.
If anyone wants to know why (I gave them the one word) , I'll try to explain.
I'm realizing that I don't think I actually could say what makes a song good or bad, universally, but rather in my own opinion. However, there IS some type of curve here where a majority of listeners will like something more than something else!

I am very curious to see who would agree with a one word response, and who would disagree. (not with the idea of doing it, but rather with the choice that I make...)

Well, here goes. In advance, please, don't be insulted if you get a "bad" or "mediocre". This is in the name of science damn it. heh hehe.

Leaf wrote: I'm gonna review this weeks' fights (deep breath) with four words. Good, average, medicore, bad.

I'm going to review this idea with one word: Boring.



Seriously, I hope this idea doesn't catch on. I'm not sure what it would prove "scientifically."

yeah...and it was kinda boring to do to. I wanted to say way more...but I learned something from it.

I don't actually care if the song is any good! I rated one thing bad, based on the views I'm picking up about what a song is supposed to be, and I really liked it. I rate one as "good" as a song, but I find the performance terrible. I forced myself to do that, just to see if it WAS the only thing that mattered...
I also started to realize that if I used the collective ideas I was picking up from this thread that I was starting to rate the songs as to how they might sound, if re-recorded with polish and skill, in a club or on the radio, or if I covered them.
And after that, the songs I want to listen to again, like Caravan' Ray's for example, only came out, in my mind, as medicore!!

I'm gonna go back to reviewing songs as they compare to a bowl of fruit salad. I enjoyed that more.

Leaf wrote:I rated one thing bad, based on the views I'm picking up about what a song is supposed to be, and I really liked it.

What is a song supposed to be?