The Song Fight Bulletin Board

fürrypedro wrote:I suggest you all stop being faggots and do the same.

Apologies to any people of a homosexual persuasion who may have been offended by my choice of words.

Can you not use the word "handsome fellow" anymore as an insult on this messageboard? People who aren't gay find it distasteful, too.

frankie big face wrote:

Adam! wrote:

frankie big face wrote: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.

I'm not being sarcastic. We know that you personally (as well as Ross, Erik, and a few others) will closely scrutinize the judges' decisions and actions. That's a good thing. It keeps us accountable; it legitimizes the competition.

But read my reply again. You said "if it took that much effort for the judges to agree"... well, the judges agreed on the challenge right off the bat. Like I said, the effort went not into seeking consensus, but into clarifying the wording to avoid this very debate. We thought we were successful; apparently we were not. For the record, I do not think the current wording is ambiguous in any way. For what it's worth, I also do not think we need to add a "make your challenge fulfillment perceivable by human ears" clause to every challenge.

Adam! wrote: But read my reply again. You said "if it took that much effort for the judges to agree"... well, the judges agreed on the challenge right off the bat.

But they didn't! Otherwise, Lunkhead wouldn't be telling his friend Ken who told his friend JB that he doesn't consider half-time to be a tempo change, while Rabid Garfunkel is saying that it is. And that's my whole point. I don't find this particular challenge to be all that ambiguous, but there is clearly NOT agreement on how the judges regard the challenge, so don't say there is because you're just picking and choosing which points you want to acknowledge and ignoring others.

Goddamn, this is the one SF-related thing I still looked forward to and it's becoming almost as frustrating as all the other SF-related things. Christ.

frankie big face wrote:

Adam! wrote: But read my reply again. You said "if it took that much effort for the judges to agree"... well, the judges agreed on the challenge right off the bat.

there is clearly NOT agreement on how the judges regard the challenge, so don't say there is

I wouldn't call the Sam->Ken->JB->The Boards game of telephone "clear", especially seeing as Lunk isn't here to clarify his opinion. But you're right: if any of us did feel that there was a misunderstanding among the judges about what a potential challenge means, we should (and would) try to reach consensus or use a different challenge. EDIT: Furthermore, from now on I will work to ensure that all the judges agree on what the minimal requirement to fulfill a challenge is before we post it.

frankie big face wrote:you're just picking and choosing which points you want to acknowledge and ignoring others. Goddamn, this is the one SF-related thing I still looked forward to and it's becoming almost as frustrating as all the other SF-related things. Christ.

Sorry frankie, I don't know what to say. I understand that you're frustrated, and I'm trying to be as level and forthcoming as possible. I realize we're both looking at this from different perspectives, and--as always--that is where the disconnect is happening... all I ask is that you assume good faith.


And if anyone wants to call us whiners or faggots or 'handsome fellows' for discussing this, use PM. This is something that needs to be discussed, preferably out in the open.

Looks like I got chucked out of this at the right time! Awsome!

Adam! wrote:We know that you personally (as well as Ross, Erik, and a few others) will closely scrutinize the judges' decisions and actions.

I'm sorry if my questions are perceived as "scrutinizing the judges' decisions and actions." I don't think I've ever argued with a result. But I do like clear rules when playing a game with rules, that's all. And knowing whether halftime/double time counts is non-trivial (there are examples from other challenges, too, like bass guitar being okay but baritone not) its a choice some of us might easily have made. Knowing that the judges agree on these positions is also non-trivial - although I don't see any reason to expect that the judges could anticipate all possible questions before the posting of the challenge.

I don't mean to scrutinize, just clarify.

Nur Ein!

Oh, C'MON, puh-leeze! Of course Half-time / Double-time doesn't count!

Just barging in, that's all, sorry!

No Horse Town wrote:Oh, C'MON, puh-leeze! Of course Half-time / Double-time doesn't count!

Just barging in, that's all, sorry!

Of course? it's just that in classical music it would not be unusual for that to be notated by a change in tempo. Don't worry - I'm not gonna do it.

Hello...

Firstly an admission, we were a little late with results for the previous round because one of the judges went missing, that was me! e-mail client problems followed by complete connection problems, I'm not a technical guy, so I contacted my provider and all's well now (hopefully!)

Secondly, and please don't anybody take me wrong here as I'm not an especially quick thinking guy either and I am inclined to ramble, but this is how it appears to work, we (the judges) spend a couple of days making suggestions for the next title and challenge, and based on the fact that this is nur ein 3 and there have been something like 20 rounds so far over the 3 years it becomes more of a challenge to come up with a 'new' challenge, without affecting the lyrical content of the songs to be created, also from my point of veiw a touch of ambiguity in the challenge makes it that much more interesting, how are things going to be interpreted for example! Yes we all like to know 'the rules' of the game we're playing, but rules will always (no matter how tight they're made) be questioned, shuffled, bent etc.... that's why we have adjudicators (for want of a better word), an interesting point get's thrown up by this whole 'level playing field' analogy though and that's that all the competitors are not starting out from an even footing, skill levels, aptitude, time constraints, and a whole load of other influencial factors.

In conclusion, Nur Ein will never be perfect, (neither will SongFight or any other 'competition' for that matter), but if it ever did become so constricted by rules, rulings, judging and adjudications etc, then it may become near perfection, but would also stop being fun!

I've enjoyed being a judge this time round, but would love to be a competitor next time (hopefully there will be a next time and squabbling hasn't killed it off by then), I would also love to see everybody have a go at being a judge, because the more minds you put into a project the bigger and better the project becomes.

All the best, Nigel.

In fact I'm that stupid, I don't even know how to edit my own post to correct the spelling

Adam! wrote:We know that you personally (as well as Ross, Erik, and a few others) will closely scrutinize the judges' decisions and actions. That's a good thing.

Respectfully, anytime anyone points out an area in which Nur Ein could be made better for the contestants, the response seems to be some variant of 1) stop worrying about the rules, or 2) you have no idea how impossibly hard it is to be a Nur Ein judge. I don't think much good comes of anything other than writing songs for the contest.

This challenge is really challenging me. Two tempo changes are fine, but the third one makes the song not flow right to my ears. I've recorded and scrapped a few parts because I didn't like them after hearing them together. I think I'll just put it together like a montage type thing. Can't think of the word.

To Adam, I say this: I have no quarrel with you and I respect your opinion. I appreciate your willingness to engage in conversation/debate/argument over these things. My comment about this process being frustrating is me mostly just blowing off steam because I'm tired and have too many things going on at once and I'm trying to write a song with three distinct tempos in a couple of days.

But I still think you're missing my point. (EDIT: Actually, I don't think you are, having re-read your post, but I'll keep the rest of my post intact to clarify and expound upon what I think is the real problem.) I don't have a problem with this challenge (other than incorporating it into my song). My problem is with judges discussing the rules in terms of their own judging preferences outside of this forum with contestants. If you guys had simply posted the challenge and then left it alone, you would have gotten several interpretations of the challenge. Then it would have been up to the judges to decide which songs met their own personal criteria and/or to re-examine the wording of the challenge to see if maybe their criteria were a little too narrow. No matter the result, contestants would be allowed to move forward full steam without having to see further and further clarification from the judges about what the stated challenge actually means.

For example, when I saw the words "three tempo changes," I immediately thought "okay, I'll write a song with separate tempos for the verse and chorus and structure my song V-C-V-C-B-C or something like that." That would have been at least three tempo changes. I made the mistake of asking for clarification because I had a feeling you guys meant three different tempos not three tempo changes and I was correct in that assumption. So I'm already revising my plan. Then, inexplicably half-time was taken off the table by JB, only to be put back on the table by RG, who asked that we give Lunkhead an opportunity to clarify his position, but since he's "off the grid" it will be a while before he can do that. So now it's Monday and there's still no clear understanding between ALL judges and ALL contestants of what the challenge means.

And Nigel, respectfully, I can come up with a dozen challenges right now that haven't been used in Nur Ein. I'm not sure that's the best defence (<---look, I spelled it your way!).

To BLT, yes, this is a very difficult challenge, especially with this title, I think. I messed around with an idea for two days and I think I'm going to scrap it and start again. I like the challenges because it's interesting to see what people do with them. But this one's almost crippling in its level of difficulty.

erik wrote:Respectfully, anytime anyone points out an area in which Nur Ein could be made better for the contestants, the response seems to be some variant of 1) stop worrying about the rules, or 2) you have no idea how impossibly hard it is to be a Nur Ein judge.

I know your first category isn't referring to me (as my track record will show), but if anything I've said has come across as "being a Nur Ein judge is hard so stop complaining", it wasn't meant that way. When I mention that the judges spent a lot of time trying to disambiguate the challenge, I'm not trying to dissuade people from making suggestions; quite the opposite, I mention it to assure that we are taking into consideration and trying to address the issues that have been raised about the challenges.

The only impossible thing for me as a Nur Ein judge is knowing when to keep my mouth shut.

As always, IANA6J ('I Am Not All Six Judges').

frankie big face wrote:My problem is with judges discussing the rules in terms of their own judging preferences outside of this forum with contestants.

Ah, yes, that IS a problem. I'm not even a contestant and that troubles me. I will make sure your concerns are raised.

I was popping in to say - worked on some recording last night - dissatisfied, will probably have to go back to the drawing board.

Glad to see I'm not the only one.

Nur Een!

I had an idea this morning that trumps all previous ideas, so if I can find the time to actually flesh it out and record it, I should be in this week. I may have to call in sick one day!

I predict that everyones song this week will be a little longer than usual.
....well, unless you guys figured out how to combine tempo changes without little micro bridges.

OK, I settled on an arrangement. It's pretty mood swinging, but it's kind of cool. I hope the judges are in an open minded mood when they hear it, because it's...........well, interesting?
....a lot of work still needed to get it right.

Billy's Little Trip wrote: I hope the judges are in an open minded mood when they hear it, .

yeah that Rabid Garfunkel and sp00n are such "in the box" guys - I hope they're loosened up for you.



I wish I played real drums better - mapping the click sucks!

I love this game.

Nur Ein!!!

Ross wrote:I wish I played real drums better - mapping the click sucks!

"That's a great album title by a great band name"

I just pooped in to say... "I love micro bridges!"

As mentioned I've been away from the Interwebs, so this is a bit late and not likely to matter much to anybody. Ken misunderstood what I said, which was that I thought we should have explicitly excluded double/half time feel. We didn't, though, so as far as I understand they're completely legit as different tempos. I was not saying anything about how I planned to judge the songs. Sorry for all the confusion.