Nur Ein III Round Four "Ties of Blood and Water"

[Billy's Little Trip]

Does it have to be exactly three different tempos or can there be more, or at least more changes between the three? I get the feeling this is fine but please speak now because otherwise I might do it!

Technically, there will be more than 3 tempo changes in my song because I will more than likely speed up as I change from a slower tempo to a faster tempo, and vice versa, for smooth transitions. Not 100% necessary, of course. But that would count as more than 3 tempo changes and I wouldn't imagine that being a problem for the judges.

[Rabid Garfunkel]

Sweet Jumpin' Jesus on a Pogo Stick in a Crackhouse, people!

The minimum requirement is three different tempos in this song (I think the original suggestion had [I'm hungover and still rather drunk at the moment... can we have a Nür Ein fdrink thread? ] 12 bpm difference as the absolute minimum between each tempo).

Yes, that means more than 3 tempos is okey-dokey fine. Going to half-time and/or double time is fine.*

Which would give, at the very least, the opportunity for an accellerondo (or decellerondo, fuck, I'm drunk and can't spell) with plateaus (yes, I'll buy a one measure plateau as meeting the tempo change requirement) to be used and not sound heinously shoehorned in as just a nod to the challenge.

* I think the majority of the surviving pack is using software DAWs, yes? And possibly playing to an initial click, on the first recorded track, generated therefrom, yes? Tempo changes are, with the "click", rather challenging in that environment without sheet music in front of you and a conductor and a rhythm section behind you. This is Nür Ein, and that's a challenge. Going half-time/double-time as your tempo change(s) will meet the requirements, and if it works within the generated world of your song, that's great, more power to you. No harm, no foul, no penalty.

But that's easy, damnit. Expand beyond the baseline of your recording rig. Do something different, y'all.

I really shouldn't read the boards before I have my morning coffee. I'm sure I'll regret this post when the backlash hits. And on the other hand, if Niv is hinting what I think he's hinting, the next challenge will be straight-fucking-forward, no possibility of ambiguity. And I'm sure you'll hate it, heh.

[Billy's Little Trip]

I'd love to do a rock opera type thing similar to what Paco did for The Blitz, but I don't know if I can pull it off as smooth as he did. So I'll probably just stick to what I know best....
....punk opera!

[Rabid Garfunkel]

Beelzebub has a devil set aside for you.

[Ross]

Nah, 'cause we already got word from Lunkhead that going from halftime to fulltime doesn't fulfill the challenge. I think the only thing to do is use three separate BPM tempi somehow in the song.

HAve we resolved where this information came from?I can't find it anywhere. If it's from pms between participants and judges regarding the rules, I'd like to suggest that the progress should be more transparent than that.

[Rabid Garfunkel]

Unknown, and Lunk's off the grid for the weekend. But your example, Ross, is only two different tempos, which doesn't satisfy the challenge.

Full time -> Half time -> Full time -> Double time, &c. does technically satisfy the challenge, having three different tempos.

[Ross]

Sweet Jumpin' Jesus on a Pogo Stick in a Crackhouse, people!

The minimum requirement is three different tempos in this song (I think the original suggestion had [I'm hungover and still rather drunk at the moment... can we have a Nür Ein fdrink thread? ] 12 bpm difference as the absolute minimum between each tempo).

Yes, that means more than 3 tempos is okey-dokey fine. Going to half-time and/or double time is fine.*

Which would give, at the very least, the opportunity for an accellerondo (or decellerondo, fuck, I'm drunk and can't spell) with plateaus (yes, I'll buy a one measure plateau as meeting the tempo change requirement) to be used and not sound heinously shoehorned in as just a nod to the challenge.

* I think the majority of the surviving pack is using software DAWs, yes? And possibly playing to an initial click, on the first recorded track, generated therefrom, yes? Tempo changes are, with the "click", rather challenging in that environment without sheet music in front of you and a conductor and a rhythm section behind you. This is Nür Ein, and that's a challenge. Going half-time/double-time as your tempo change(s) will meet the requirements, and if it works within the generated world of your song, that's great, more power to you. No harm, no foul, no penalty.

But that's easy, damnit. Expand beyond the baseline of your recording rig. Do something different, y'all.

I really shouldn't read the boards before I have my morning coffee. I'm sure I'll regret this post when the backlash hits. And on the other hand, if Niv is hinting what I think he's hinting, the next challenge will be straight-fucking-forward, no possibility of ambiguity. And I'm sure you'll hate it, heh.

Where is that Italic quote from? If Lunkhead said to jb half to double is not ok, but you say it is, who do we believe? Is there a head judge? Is there a judge in charge of challenges? Please clarify - we're continuing to get mixed messages. I will write the best song I can and meet the challenge the best I can - but when we appear to have multiple definitions - it gets frustrating.

[Ross]

Unknown, and Lunk's off the grid for the weekend. But your example, Ross, is only two different tempos, which doesn't satisfy the challenge.

Full time -> Half time -> Full time -> Double time, &c. does technically satisfy the challenge, having three different tempos.

Thanks for checking - sorry our posts crossed. I didn't mean to suggest just the one half to double transition as a full satisfaction, but rather the question of whether they would count as two different tempos. I don't think I'll actually do that, but I'll assume the other judges agree with you on this, just in case.

Thanks for the reply.

[Adam!]

I don't remember having any confusion (okay, very little) or difficulty with the challenges last year. No guitars? Easy. Only guitars? Also easy. Changing time signatures? I get it. And when I say easy, I don't mean "easy to pull off," I mean "easy to understand." When you only have a few days to write and record the songs, it would be nice if you knew by say, the end of the first day, what the non-optional challenge actually means. It makes educated and proficient musicians feel like idiots when they have to constantly rethink themselves and ask questions about the challenge.

I assure you, frankie, we're trying hard to come up with interesting challenges that can be easily understood.

I think the original suggestion had 12 bpm difference as the absolute minimum between each tempo

I don't really want to lay the whole process out on the line, but as long as we're talking about earlier suggestions, I might as well detail how this challenge evolved. It started out as "Tempo Change"... pretty fricken' simple, eh? But, we could already see that some people will just meet the challenge very trivially by doing a bar or two of half-time, so a third tempo was added. Then we realized someone might think going from 130bpm to 131bpm to 132bpm was a sweet way to meet the challenge, so the "minimum 12 bpm difference" was added. I think the word 'Significant' might have been dropped in there at some point, too. Eventually, it got chopped down to "three tempo changes" and posted, which ended up STILL being too ambiguous, so we clarified it to "three different tempos". I hope it's obvious that a song containing 5 different tempos contains 3 different tempos, but it may yet need to be clarified further to "a minimum of three different tempos"

So we aren't just throwing these out there: a lot of brainstorming goes on to try to anticipate how the challenge might be misinterpreted.

What Lunk may or may not have said was probably an expression of his preference, as opposed to official edict. So, as long as we're being candid, if you shoehorn in a half-time/double-time tempo change that doesn't really belong in the song, I will not be happy. You will have minimally met the challenge, but you will have failed to impress this judge. Similarly, if your three tempos are 130bpm, 131bpm, and 132bpm, I will not be able to tell that you met the challenge, and I will probably put you near the bottom of my list.

[jb]

Nah, 'cause we already got word from Lunkhead that going from halftime to fulltime doesn't fulfill the challenge. I think the only thing to do is use three separate BPM tempi somehow in the song.

HAve we resolved where this information came from?I can't find it anywhere. If it's from pms between participants and judges regarding the rules, I'd like to suggest that the progress should be more transparent than that.

I wondered about half vs. fulltime in chat, and word came from somebody else about Lunkhead, so it could very well just be hearsay and misunderstanding and me being a dick for perpetrating it.

[ken]

I think it was me who related what Lunkhead told me. Perhaps I should've kept it to myself.

Ken

[Ross]

I think it was me who related what Lunkhead told me. Perhaps I should've kept it to myself.

Ken

I know you guys are friends and all, and I certainly don't mean to make any accusations, but it seems like private communications between participants and judges about rules and preferences makes this process less transparent than it ought to be - it could make it a less than level playing field, if you know what I mean. And I'm not saying you were scheming or deliberately sneaking or anything like that - at all.

Not asking for a new rule or anything - just putting it out there.

[Spud]

Perhaps I should've kept it to myself.

To the contrary. If you had information on how one judge was going to be interpreting the challenge, you should have shared it on the board, with everyone, rather than in the chat with just JB and whoever else might have been lurking around.

My two cents: I take it upon myself to convince the judges, through my submission, that I have the best possible interpretation of the challenge, regardless of what they might have had in mind. Of course, I'm out... so, uh... never mind.

[frankie big face]

As long as people are bringing it up - I'm not sure I agree with this. Although I can't think of a time that anyone has been absolutely DSQ-ed for not doing the challenge. In the no-guitars challenge I got some crap for using a dulcimer - which is absolutely not a guitar - but folks loved Glennny's mandolin. In the "Let me in" round Merisan got away with tambourine and bongos even though we were to use no conventional percussion. Jim even used hand claps, which had already been discussed on the boards as not okay.

This information goes to support my view that the challenges are given way more weight this year than last year. (Too much, in my view, but I'm not a judge and I want to play, so I play by whatever rules are set forth.)

I know you guys are friends and all, and I certainly don't mean to make any accusations, but it seems like private communications between participants and judges about rules and preferences makes this process less transparent than it ought to be - it could make it a less than level playing field, if you know what I mean.

This is absolutely true and kind of shitty in my view. I know this is a "fun" competition, but people are serious about doing well or they wouldn't spend so much time and energy participating. What kind of serious competition has judges talking with contestants in private about their judging preferences? Yeah yeah yeah, I know--I'm an asshole and I take everything too seriously.

I appreciate Adam's comments about how the challenge was discussed and clarified prior to posting, but maybe if it took that much effort for the judges to agree about it (and obviously, they still don't), it should have been thrown out and replaced with something with less room for interpretation. For me, the challenges are a fun part of this competition, but this year, more often than not, they've been a nuisance.

[Billy's Little Trip]

Wow, you guys are master debaters. This is jolly good fun.
I'm hoping that one of the guys/girls in round 4 get pissed off and say something awful to one of the judges to improve my odds, I'm going to need it with this bunch.

Personally, I love ALL the judges.
Ive always had a deep respect, and I mean that most sincerely. The judges are just fantastic, that is really how I jive.
Oh by the way, Which one's number five?

[Rabid Garfunkel]

BLT: You've offered to sleep with two of the judges so far (the judge's numbers change each round). Care to go for the hat trick?

FBF: The challenges... they are a criterion that does have a lot of weight, true. But a good, solid song also carries a lot of weight. It is, for me, a three-sided... uh, thingy. Performance, production, and challenge. And as to the "shitty"ness of the judges' private communications, well, like I said in a previous post, Lunk's off the grid for the weekend and isn't able to respond to/explain his side. Can we put the umbrage on a back burner until he's able to put in a word for himself?

Ross: A weak song with a good challenge inclusion won't beat a strong song with a poor challenge inclusion. Music first, and foremost, and always. Oh, and the italicization of the quote (that you'd asked about in a previous post) is for emphasis, it was (and is) the thinking behind my suggestion of this particular challenge in the first place.

Spud: I enjoyed your challenge interpretations. Thanks for being 180 degrees off, and damned clever about it.

RG: Shut up already and let 'em get back to work.

[Adam!]

if it took that much effort for the judges to agree about it (and obviously, they still don't), it should have been thrown out and replaced with something with less room for interpretation

To be clear, the effort put into clarifying the challenge wording was so that you (and by 'you' I mean the Nur Ein contestants, but also you specifically, frankie. See, we care.) would not find it ambiguous.

[Billy's Little Trip]

BLT: You've offered to sleep with two of the judges so far (the judge's numbers change each round). Care to go for the hat trick?

Well, as long as I don't disgust ALL of the judges with my musical spoog in round 4, I might go for the hat trick. Regardless, you and Mz. Conduct (ah'ooga) are certainly more than welcome to my little Swaraj.
...in fact, everyone is welcome. Let's have a party for the soul!
NUR EIN!

[frankie big face]

if it took that much effort for the judges to agree about it (and obviously, they still don't), it should have been thrown out and replaced with something with less room for interpretation

To be clear, the effort put into clarifying the challenge wording was so that you (and by 'you' I mean the Nur Ein contestants, but also you specifically, frankie. See, we care.) would not find it ambiguous.

I understood your first post clearly, but thanks for adding some sarcasm to the mix. The intent of the judges doesn't change the result, which is yet another (to use your word) ambiguous non-optional challenge.

[furrypedro]

Re: All the challenge ambiguity bollocks

For our song this week I have started off in 210bpm (with some polyrhythmic action too, but that's another story), and about halfway through it changes to 135bpm. I plan to add another section in another tempo I've not decided yet.

I suggest you all stop being "handsome fellows" and do the same.

Apologies to any people of a homosexual persuasion who may have been offended by my choice of words. Anyone not of this persuasion who is also offended......um.....I've got a lovely photo of my arse which is sure to turn your head.

On a little side note, our 135bpm section sounds faster than the 210 bpm section. Ain't that weird? music is fun.

[Billy's Little Trip]

On a little side note, our 135bpm section sounds faster than the 210 bpm section. Ain't that weird? music is fun.

I love it when that happens......and yes it is.

[erik]

if it took that much effort for the judges to agree about it (and obviously, they still don't), it should have been thrown out and replaced with something with less room for interpretation

To be clear, the effort put into clarifying the challenge wording was so that you (and by 'you' I mean the Nur Ein contestants, but also you specifically, frankie. See, we care.) would not find it ambiguous.

I have no dog in this race, but it seems to me that part of the reason the challenges are ambiguous is because whoever is responsible for typing them in wants to only use 5 words or less, one of which must be the ever-vague "significant". It's like, if the people who made up the challenge know what the challenge is supposed to be, then use as many words as possible to say that. Like:

Challenge: Songs for this round must contain at least 3 different tempos. Please make the tempos different enough (and last for long enough) so that the judges can tell you fulfilled the challenge.