nyjm wrote:okay, let's have our cake and eat it, too.
jury: jim, jack, j$ (how's that for alliteration!) vote off two x number of entrants each round (or three if there are many). the jury has to be an odd number so the it can reach a majority consesus.
nyjm wrote:okay, let's have our cake and eat it, too.
jury: jim, jack, j$ (how's that for alliteration!) vote off two x number of entrants each round (or three if there are many). the jury has to be an odd number so the it can reach a majority consesus.
Was J$ actually volunteering to be on the jury? He's far to prolific a writer to be sidelined by that. I'll volunteer as an alternate if he would rather write songs than reviews.
EDIT: If it messes up the alliteration you can call me Jan-O or Jackass-O or something.
Well, if title might be an issue, duel titles could be used, and you just pick which one you want to do. The duel titles could be ditched around semi-finals, or some shit.
I like the idea that everyone votes. Not that I don't trust J$ to be inpartial. I just don't trust J$ at all.
How many people enter would dictate how many are ejected each round, I would think. You know, 6 weeks by 12 people = 2 out a week, or something like that.
I don't expect to make it past a round 2, but participating is the experience.
I want to be on the jury, I think it would be fun and seeing as JoS and I are diametrically opposed, taste-wise, I think it would make for interesting feedback.
Hmm, JoS, Jack and J$ as the jury, huh? This might just call for the return of the king...
I do like the idea of using current songfight titles, just because that solves the hosting problem, but that would make this more of a "side vote" than a side fight. Could still do an elimination every two weeks, just means everybody who is still in the running has to submit a song for at least one of those two weeks. That might ease the dropout problem, too...
Charles
"...one does not write in dactylic hexameter purely by accident..." - poetic designs
I am with KA on the song title thing - we want to maqke it more interesting for everyone involved, and to have something to look forward to that is aside the titles. I reckon mid-week or day before titles are due for the 'shownight'. I will host any songs for this on my website.
always toeing the line between complexity and fun-factor.
titles for each round:
- use sonfight titles
- as well as one or two suggested by the jury
this gets a little complicated if the rounds are every two weeks. for each round there would be up to 8 possible titles (but i'm all for diversity). however, what about re-edits? say you pick a songfight title from the first week. does this mean you get a week to create the song, feedback from the message boards, and the another week to re-mix/re-work before submitting to the sidefight? or is the original submission the only one?
well, why not allow re-workings? this certainly creates some interesting strategy decisions:
1) Pick a songfight title early. Make your song, get some feedback, re-work it and submit to the side-fight.
2) Pick a songfight title late. Little to no chance for feedback, but if the earlier songfight titles don't do it for you, you still have options.
3) Do both the late and early songfight titles. Submit your best to the side-fight.
4) Pick the jury title. You get two full weeks to create the song, and you can sumbit it to somesongs, the "Listen to My Song" thread or elsewhere for feedback.
I suppose the biggest risk is tainting the jury. The earlier you publically sumbit the song, the more chances the jury will have to listen to the song and form an opinion. ("When I heard this the first time, it really sucked, but in the two weeks since, it's grown on me." The inverse is also possible: "I'm so sick of hearing this. It was cool the first three times, but now...") But I think the system would probably favor those who write early and often. It would reduce the chances of drop-outs, I agree.
Things are simpler if the rounds are every week: pick either a songfight title or a jury title. One week, no message board feedback, no jury exposure. Your first sumbission anywhere is your only entry to the side-fight.
On a side-note, i think we're moving away from a "Survivor"-style competition (entrants forming clans and voting each off) to a more "Idol"-like model (elimination by jury and/or popular vote), but that's okay, this is our show!
What would be really awesome: make a pod-cast for each round! The jury would record their reactions for each song, and then we could have an MC/host for the whole shebang. Glenn Case? Niveous? The initial shows could be pretty big, but perhaps once the contestant-pool is widdled down to a manageable number it would be more practical.
I think I've suggested the single elimination model a few times. Like any good tournament. Pair everyone off and pick one or the other. The winner moves on to the next round.
I would like to participate.
Can this not start until March for those of us working on the February Album Writing Month project?
Ken
Ken's Super Duper Band 'n Stuff - Berkeley Social Scene - Tiny Robots - Seamus Collective - Semolina Pilchards - Cutie Pies - Explino! - Bravo Bros. - 2 from 14 - and more!
i would just like to remind everyone that Ken eats kittens - blue lang
ken wrote:I think I've suggested the single elimination model a few times. Like any good tournament. Pair everyone off and pick one or the other. The winner moves on to the next round.
i was thinking about a tournament model, too, but that's quite different from the Survivor/Idol structure we have going right now. i think we can save a tournament for later, perhaps this summer (when i will have more free time.) ;-)
is it bad that i think "Song Fight! Tournament 2006" and the theme for "Unreal Tournament 2003" starts playing my head?
nyjm wrote:
Things are simpler if the rounds are every week: pick either a songfight title or a jury title. One week, no message board feedback, no jury exposure. Your first sumbission anywhere is your only entry to the side-fight.
Yes, I think this is preferable to wacky shenanigans with multiple submission times and whatnot.
-bill
j$ wrote:I want to be on the jury, I think it would be fun and seeing as JoS and I are diametrically opposed, taste-wise, I think it would make for interesting feedback.
J$
Well there goes my one and only chance in life to sit in judgement of others.
jack wrote:randy is the one that says dawg and jim wants to be simon. johnny of course has to be paula, so i'll be randy.
...translating:
Jack = Mark Holden, an almost forgotten 1970's pretty boy,
J$ = Marcia Hines, an American-born pop-diva with abnormally large lips, and
JoS = annoying little twat called Dicko.
Ok, yeah I'm in
-----------------------------------------
EDIT: Jacks avatar has just become Mark Holden circa 1977!
I thought J$ was an American-born pop diva with abnormally large lips.
You failed to mention that Mark Holden was a producer on one of David Hasselhofs albums. If that isn't the peak of any music career, I don't know what is.
Jacks avatar has just become Mark Holden circa 1977!
