The Song Fight Bulletin Board

Furrypedro wrote:I find that being quoted on the boards gives similar feelings as getting reviews. I suppose it just feels good to know somebody is listening that's all.

Who's this wanker?

Furrypedro wrote:What if somebody loved your song, but for all the wrong reasons?

Yeah like "that's the most hilarious thing i ever heard, i loved it and sent it to all my friends. cracked me up!" when you were totally baring your soul and being heartfelt.

Not that that's happened, but I can see it. I think that's probably the most likely scenario-- unintentional hilarity.

Furrypedro wrote: and speaking of quotes (and I've used this one pretty recently but I think it's relevant here) there's a good line in Jeffrey Lewis' song Don't Let The Record Label Take You Out To Lunch
"Try not to want people to like you too much,
You'll just need more and more flattery to recharge your batteries."

You get extra super bonus points for dropping Jeffrey Lewis' name. He's awesome.

more favourites...

Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much. -
Oscar Wilde

Attention to health is life greatest hindrance. -
Plato

Who's this wanker? -
Caravan Ray

I LIKE BOOBS. AND BEER -
Sven Mullet

This reminds me of something. I guess this is a decent place to advertise that I do NOT mind incorrect assumptions in interviews. Like when people assume I took part in the creation of an entry because the word phunt is in the band name even though I had nothing to do with the entry. It's great that artists can use the word, and it's okay that people think it's me (until I come in and remind people that it's not me). Sometimes, folks have been really caustic (like bite my head off all crazy-like) when I gently correct these assumptions. That is tragic, because I don't consider that reactionary whining about bad reviews. I mean, they're not even my songs. I'm just correcting what I feel is an easy to make incorrect assumption. Does this comment even belong here?

good point, Egg has cleared things up on my behalf on more than one occasion to this end, for which I am grateful.

jb wrote:Yeah like "that's the most hilarious thing i ever heard, i loved it and sent it to all my friends. cracked me up!" when you were totally baring your soul and being heartfelt.

Not that that's happened, but I can see it. I think that's probably the most likely scenario-- unintentional hilarity.

Well, I remember people thinking my "In Bed" was cute, when really it came from this horrible pain and frustration. But of course, in retrospect, it was pretty cute so who can blame 'em.

"I just love that people take time to do reviews, so they can say anything!"

I like reading reviewers' suggestions, and try to follow through with them on future songs. But MOST important to me is some sign that you've actually listened to the song. Not necessarily "been in the room at the same time as the song was playing", but actually listened actively to it. Of course, that's harder to do if you don't like the song.

Reviews are a mixed blessing. I love reading them, but always feel incredibly guilty that I don't always reciprocate. Instead of posting a shortlist of "these were cool" I tend to just not post at all, which is a process I should really change.

Lunkhead wrote:I don't think anybody has any illusions that reviews are required or necessary, but on the other hand, I think the fact that we're sending our songs out for strangers to listen to implies that we would like feedback of some kind.

Point taken. But my point was that when folks receive feedback that differs from those “expectationsâ€

Dan-O from Five-O wrote:

jb wrote:Knocking people on production when it's painfully obvious that they didn't even try is just about the dumbest thing you can do. THE DUMBEST THING. jb

Actually…..EXPECTING your listeners to KNOW that you don’t give a shit about production is the dumbest thing you can do. If people have a love affair with lo-fi, great. Just tell me and I will take that out of my equation when I write your review. Otherwise I’m going to think you suck because you’re a slacker.

I think anyone who has been in this community for any reasonable amount of time does expect Fodroy to sound lo-fi. Short of announcing it at the beginning of every MP3 I don't understand what you expect him to do.

Dan-O from Five-O wrote: I apologize. So there’s the olive branch everyone, I extend it to the entire community.

I can't stay mad at you!

Dan-O from Five-O wrote:So there’s the olive branch everyone, I extend it to the entire community.

I remember making a stupid joke at your expense in some thread somewhere days before you left, and though it wasn't a big deal at the time, I've felt pretty stupid about it since. I want you to know, for what it's worth, I respect you and hope you stay involved around here.

Dan-O from Five-O wrote:EXPECTING your listeners to KNOW that you don’t give a shit about production is the dumbest thing you can do. If people have a love affair with lo-fi, great. Just tell me and I will take that out of my equation when I write your review.

but why? if YOU PERSONALLY don't like the way it sounds, you should say so. "it sounds like muddy garbled shit," you should say. if it was *meant* to sound that way, then you should excuse that fact? why? that's like saying so-and-so is a terrible awful singer, and you think all his/her songs are terrible and awful as a result, but then you find out the singing was done that way on purpose, so all of a sudden it's good?

Dan-O from Five-O wrote:Actually…..EXPECTING your listeners to KNOW that you don’t give a shit about production is the dumbest thing you can do. If people have a love affair with lo-fi, great. Just tell me and I will take that out of my equation when I write your review. Otherwise I’m going to think you suck because you’re a slacker.

I'm just sayin' don't waste your time nattering on about condenser microphones to the guy from the Mountaingoats. But if you don't like the sound, then fine. I dunno, it just seems like I can figure out when people are trying and when they're not. Sometimes they know better and just didn't take the time-- that's often *my* problem, actually-- and in those cases I wasted my breath. But other times you just know that that screechy horror is what they were aiming at, and you just have to say "yeah, not my thing yo" and give it an F.

jb wrote:Sometimes they know better and just didn't take the time-- that's often *my* problem, actually-- and in those cases I wasted my breath.

I can't review any more. I've pissed off too many people.

I try to be helpful, or I try to save time. But what I think of as helpful, some people see as pedantic. And they tend to hate pedantic more than they appreciate helpful. And if I try to save time, I don't end up contributiing anything (it's easy to write while listening: "I like this, it has an interesting verse, whoa that bridge is clumsy." That's my definition of unhelpful). It's not worth my time. I'm no victim: I'm guilty of pedantry and I know it pisses people off so I've just decided to stop doing it.

It's fun to read reviews, but the vote tallies are always more interesting.

I'm not sure why critics should expect artists not to bite back when they get a negative review.

I mean, I know all the people who do extensive reviews are thinking "this guy should appreciate the time I took to enumerate all of his failings". Seriously, that's the thought behind it, whether you've consciously recognized it or not. But unless you're super mature, that REPLY button is right there and all too easy to click and start biting back.

Thin-skinned critics is what we have. Unless you're going to tell somebody you liked their work, you need to be prepared to get shit for your opinion, even though by posting a song in public they are tacitly asking for it to a certain extent.

Just as the artists are quick to react, the critics here seem quick to be mortally offended at even the semblance of a less-than-gracious response to their reviews. Like a response of "hmmm well, ok, I guess, but I don't really agree" is the same as "YOU SUCK AT REVIEWING AND YOU'RE UGLY." I understand that often the latter is sometimes closer to the actual response, but I honestly don't see *that* much of that sort of thing. Everybody's so god damn touchy.

HEY fuck off who are you calling touchy! I'll lick any sum'bitch in the room!

jb wrote:I'm not sure why critics should expect artists not to bite back when they get a negative review.

Thin-skinned critics is what we have....

oh, please.

frankie big face wrote:

jb wrote:I'm not sure why critics should expect artists not to bite back when they get a negative review.

Thin-skinned critics is what we have....

oh, please.

It's just human nature! They're gonna snap back when they feel like their baby is threatened. Why are we always so surprised and hurt? It's not Song Love.

Well, when I go to Walmart I expect to hear screaming children, but that don't make it right. And I'm not thin-skinned for not wanting to hear that kind of noise.

I totally expect people to instinctively respond to a negative opinion of their work in a totally juevenile "i-know-you-are-but-what-am-I" fashion. But that doesn't make that kind of response a good response in any sense of the word. It makes people less likely to be honest, it makes people less likely to offer opinions at all, and it discourages dialogue. It makes people less likely to use their brain to explain themselves, and more likely to come up with what they think is a clever insult.

erik wrote:It makes people less likely to be honest, it makes people less likely to offer opinions at all, and it discourages dialogue.

That's what I didn't feel like taking the time to say!

You rotten ungrateful kids are ruining it for the rest of us!