The Song Fight Bulletin Board

The fakeness of the drums (especially the tambourine) was distracting on multiple re-listens. But overall I enjoyed this a lot.

Thanks for the review Jon!

What's funny is these are real drums, and that's a real tambourine. I used Nice recordings of each of these. The drums you asked about at the listening party for Round Zero were the fake garageband drums. So I take your point that there is a mixing issue for your ears on this one. I however don't know what I'd change, I think they sound fantastic, maybe I'd bring the tambourine level down a bit, mostly in seeking Manhattan Gluttons approval.

Generic wrote:Judge reviews!

FTR, *A* judge reviews. As if that's somehow better than any of yowse reviewing. Just a question of [new] semantics but the choice of phrase bothers me.

frankie big face wrote:EDIT: I've decided to remove my rant about this review. But you can just imagine how outrageous it was. I saved it...just in case.

What the efff word?! The only reason I come here to read the reviews each week is to see you go all McEnroe on Jon's review of your song!

Billy's Little Trip wrote:

frankie big face wrote:EDIT: I've decided to remove my rant about this review. But you can just imagine how outrageous it was. I saved it...just in case.

What the efff word?! The only reason I come here to read the reviews each week is to see you go all McEnroe on Jon's review of your song!

Here you go BLT. Fire up your photoshop and start swapping some heads around

The lyrics scan well and have some clever rhymes, but you threw in some awkward phrases to make them fit. The fakeness of the drums (especially the tambourine) was distracting on multiple re-listens. But overall I enjoyed this a lot.

WTF? 3rd to last? Doesn't seem like you enjoyed it a lot. Which ones are the awkward phrases? It seems like you gathered information from me during round zero then assumed you could apply it to this round, concerning the drums and tambo, and it's not based on what you hear. I don't mind the ranking if that's what you think, but your reasons are driving me nuts. I don't want to discourage reviews, but WTF!

Billy's Little Trip wrote:

frankie big face wrote:EDIT: I've decided to remove my rant about this review. But you can just imagine how outrageous it was. I saved it...just in case.

What the efff word?! The only reason I come here to read the reviews each week is to see you go all McEnroe on Jon's review of your song!

Haha. Have I been doing that? I'd like to think on a scale of 1 to Jeff Fal, I've been pretty calm overall.

I really do appreciate the reviews but, as Glennny pointed out, the specifics can sometimes be maddening. In this case, I felt Jon's review of àtlm's song was a little condescending in that it referred to specific parts of the song that were absolutely thought out (hell, they were sent to me notated on sheet music!) as "afterthoughts" or "unrelated to the rest of the song." I think that's unfair to the artist and assumes facts not in evidence, as a lawyer might say.

I also always go crazy when I feel the non-optional challenge has not only to be met, but to be met to a judges particular level of satisfaction. I try to be creative when dealing with these challenges but to imply that àtlm did not meet the challenge in a way that was satisfactory or was less than sincere or whatever rubs me the wrong way.

So that's basically what I said, BLT. But yes, with more McEnroe-like pontificating. I definitely do not want to discourage judge reviews—it's nice to know the reasons behind the rankings—but it's also hard to resist defending the songs or the artists when you feel they have been slighted.

No offense to Jon! Thanks for your hard work on running Nur Ein and thank you for posting reviews!

à tous les monsieurs wrote: Jon, thanks again for the listen and taking part in the judging for this contest. I don't know if it is good or bad form to reply to the reviews from judges? But I will.

Those harmonies in the intro are functionally identical to the A section, with extensions added. I was going for the form of the 40s ballads that open with a string section or a cappella choir as a rubato, free intro. By the time we end on that lush dominant 7#5#9 chord the intro is set to resolve into the main key of d minor.

But yes, singing the band name is silly and out of context. But that won't stop anytime soon. I'm committed.

Repeating the Bridge and A3 lyric is standard tin pan alley technique. Barring a few standards ("These Foolish Things"), I couldn't see it happening any other way for a 32 bar ballad. It is a tried and true tradition in songwriting in the first half of the twentieth century. For me, something about revisiting the bridge lyrics and final A section gives the story more weight. It functions in the same fashion to the modern "chorus" in top 40 music post 1950. The power of repetition.

frankie big face wrote:

Generic wrote: À Tous Les Monsieurs
Frank has been around this particular block a few times, so I assume he informed Erik that the Round Zero challenge doesn't apply to the rest of the competition, right? Your harmonies in the intro would seem to satisfy the challenge, but that portion of the song doesn't really have anything to do with what follows, and the harmonies in that section are an afterthought. I like your lyrical approach to the challenge - using spies honestly hadn't occurred to me. I am a little curious about whether the narrator knew she was a spy before he fell for her.

EDIT: I've decided to remove my rant about this review. But you can just imagine how outrageous it was. I saved it...just in case.

frankie big face wrote: Haha. Have I been doing that? I'd like to think on a scale of 1 to Jeff Fal, I've been pretty calm overall.

I really do appreciate the reviews but, as Glennny pointed out, the specifics can sometimes be maddening. In this case, I felt Jon's review of àtlm's song was a little condescending in that it referred to specific parts of the song that were absolutely thought out (hell, they were sent to me notated on sheet music!) as "afterthoughts" or "unrelated to the rest of the song." I think that's unfair to the artist and assumes facts not in evidence, as a lawyer might say.

I also always go crazy when I feel the non-optional challenge has not only to be met, but to be met to a judges particular level of satisfaction. I try to be creative when dealing with these challenges but to imply that àtlm did not meet the challenge in a way that was satisfactory or was less than sincere or whatever rubs me the wrong way.

So that's basically what I said, BLT. But yes, with more McEnroe-like pontificating. I definitely do not want to discourage judge reviews—it's nice to know the reasons behind the rankings—but it's also hard to resist defending the songs or the artists when you feel they have been slighted.

No offense to Jon! Thanks for your hard work on running Nur Ein and thank you for posting reviews!

Whew! A lot to unpack here!

First off, Erik, in case it's not already apparent: Yes, there's a long history of contestants responding to/arguing with judge reviews. I thought your response to the review was quite measured and perfectly reasonable. You also pointed out some things I legitimately hadn't noticed. I'll have to listen again and pay attention to the harmonies in the intro. I think what kept me from noticing this was the fact that the extensions made the choral harmonies sound major in tonality, where the verse melody is clearly minor. That and the rubato combined so that I could not recognize the two progressions as related at all, until it was pointed out to me.

As for the lyrical repetition: This is a case, I think, where genre conventions conflict with what the song needs (in my admittedly idiosyncratic and completely subjective opinion). I'm familiar with the "tin pan alley tradition" of repeating structure, and I don't object to it as a matter of course, but in a song where the lyrics form a narrative, repeating lyrics can feel like backward momentum.

At first I thought I had missed some drama from Frank, but he's gone and clarified his concerns, and I think they mostly match Erik's I do apologize if my review seemed dismissive of aspects of the song which were in fact meticulously planned. It should be obvious, but it bears mentioning that the judges aren't looking over your shoulder as you work, and we're not privy to your creative process. All we have is the finished product—if your intentions are evident when we listen (usually repeatedly), then that's great! But if they're not, I don't really know what can be done about it other than pick yourself up, dust yourself off, start all over again.

I like your songs so far. I liked your first one more than I've liked the other two, but that's a minor distinction, and most of the criticisms in my reviews have been nitpicks. I can tell that you're creative and highly musically literate, and that has resulted in some good songs. I'm sorry if the middling rankings (among other also very good songs!) and the nitpicky reviews have made that less apparent, but I really do like what you're doing, and I hope you keep it up.

Generic wrote:But if they're not, I don't really know what can be done about it other than pick yourself up, dust yourself off, start all over again.

Yes, definitely. That is great advice to yourself. You're doing the best that you can.

glennny wrote:

The fakeness of the drums (especially the tambourine) was distracting on multiple re-listens. But overall I enjoyed this a lot.

Thanks for the review Jon!

What's funny is these are real drums, and that's a real tambourine. I used Nice recordings of each of these. The drums you asked about at the listening party for Round Zero were the fake garageband drums. So I take your point that there is a mixing issue for your ears on this one. I however don't know what I'd change, I think they sound fantastic, maybe I'd bring the tambourine level down a bit, mostly in seeking Manhattan Gluttons approval.

I apologize for misidentifying it. I think I overgeneralized my language; in reality, the tambourine was the only thing that stuck out to me as "fake," so maybe it's got too much compression on it, or maybe it's just a little too high in the mix.

glennny wrote:

The lyrics scan well and have some clever rhymes, but you threw in some awkward phrases to make them fit. The fakeness of the drums (especially the tambourine) was distracting on multiple re-listens. But overall I enjoyed this a lot.

WTF? 3rd to last? Doesn't seem like you enjoyed it a lot. Which ones are the awkward phrases? It seems like you gathered information from me during round zero then assumed you could apply it to this round, concerning the drums and tambo, and it's not based on what you hear. I don't mind the ranking if that's what you think, but your reasons are driving me nuts. I don't want to discourage reviews, but WTF!

Here are the main examples of verbiage in your lyrics that I felt was awkward:
"In your blouse I felt a fool / Sit down confrontation with readied explanations..."
"Party lines were on display"

These are phrases that fit nicely in the melody, but felt like they had to have their syntax kind of squeezed to fit in there.

Still, the line "We listened to 'Illusions' and early 90s fusion" makes up for a lot.

Now, onto your primary complaint...

I've competed in these things before, I so know the feeling. I've looked at the judges' scorecards before and thought "Really? Second to last place? I know my song had problems, but surely it was better than [insert other competitor's name here]!" It can't help but feel insulting sometimes. I'm no stranger to the bottoms of judges' lists. The fact is, rankings are subjective, and no amount of grousing about your rank can make the system any more consistent. The judges are given no rubric to follow, so each one makes up his own rules and ranks the songs by whatever criteria he sees fit.

That said... I didn't rank you third-to-last. The judges are not assigned specific numbers, so Judge #4, who ranked you third from the bottom this week, isn't the same as Judge #4 (who ranked you third from the top) last week. I hope that makes more sense to you.

Now, go write your next song!

Generic wrote: Carlo Bruno Jr.
You pull off the slow-jam vibe really well; I wonder if there's any genre you can't imitate. I like the line "You know the naked truth," but the language throughout the rest of the song is a little difficult to interpret. I like the "Shame on you / shame on me" refrain, but I don't know why "shame on me." Shame on you for keeping the diary in the first place, I guess? It's fun to listen to, as long as I keep myself from thinking too hard about it.

Shame on you because you stole the diary. Shame on me because that diary belonged to someone else and I stole it to be that person, and you discovered that...

Hope it is a good and understandable explanation....

carlo bruno jr wrote:

Generic wrote: Carlo Bruno Jr.
You pull off the slow-jam vibe really well; I wonder if there's any genre you can't imitate. I like the line "You know the naked truth," but the language throughout the rest of the song is a little difficult to interpret. I like the "Shame on you / shame on me" refrain, but I don't know why "shame on me." Shame on you for keeping the diary in the first place, I guess? It's fun to listen to, as long as I keep myself from thinking too hard about it.

Shame on you because you stole the diary. Shame on me because that diary belonged to someone else and I stole it to be that person, and you discovered that...

Hope it is a good and understandable explanation....

A-ha. Yes, I understand it now, but that wasn't clear to me from the lyrics alone. Thanks for the explanation!

@Jon, I was going to say " but theres only one judge that has Paco , Frankie as 1 & 2". Apparently that's not enough of an identifier, there are two judge that had Paco, Frankie as 1,2.
I apologize.

Cheers!

Interesting ... for the times I have been a judge (what, this is the .. third?) I have always felt weird about the anonymity of Judge 1, Judge 2 etc when it comes to scoring. I am arrogant and sure of myself enough that I have no problem with being identified and taking any heat as a result. That said, I always assumed it was pretty obvious from my reviews and therefore there must be some good reason to keep it 'under the radar' that I don't get.

So what I'm saying is if you want to know which judge I am each round, PM me and I'll tell you. And then you can shout at me that way rather than fillin' up the boards with fiery Nevada.

Unless there's some reason I shouldn't be doing that ... in which case our shadowy overseers will take me into a corner and lobotomize me, to everyone's great relief

j$

glennny wrote:@Jon, I was going to say " but theres only one judge that has Paco , Frankie as 1 & 2". Apparently that's not enough of an identifier, there are two judge that had Paco, Frankie as 1,2.
I apologize.

Cheers!

It's true, you can sleuth it out that way most of the time, but about once per eon the planets align causing j$ and I to agree on two things at once.

j$ wrote:Interesting ... for the times I have been a judge (what, this is the .. third?) I have always felt weird about the anonymity of Judge 1, Judge 2 etc when it comes to scoring. I am arrogant and sure of myself enough that I have no problem with being identified and taking any heat as a result. That said, I always assumed it was pretty obvious from my reviews and therefore there must be some good reason to keep it 'under the radar' that I don't get.

So what I'm saying is if you want to know which judge I am each round, PM me and I'll tell you. And then you can shout at me that way rather than fillin' up the boards with fiery Nevada.

Unless there's some reason I shouldn't be doing that ... in which case our shadowy overseers will take me into a corner and lobotomize me, to everyone's great relief

j$

I'll let Niveous decide whether that's appropriate. The randomizing of the judge numbers is something he's always done in years past*, so I've followed suit, but the purpose of it isn't immediately apparent to me, either.

*By the way, the main reason I know this is because I used to pore over the individual judge results each week just as Glen has done this week, looking for clues. I do understand the impulse.

j$ wrote:Interesting ... for the times I have been a judge (what, this is the .. third?) I have always felt weird about the anonymity of Judge 1, Judge 2 etc when it comes to scoring. I am arrogant and sure of myself enough that I have no problem with being identified and taking any heat as a result. That said, I always assumed it was pretty obvious from my reviews and therefore there must be some good reason to keep it 'under the radar' that I don't get.

So what I'm saying is if you want to know which judge I am each round, PM me and I'll tell you. And then you can shout at me that way rather than fillin' up the boards with fiery Nevada.

Unless there's some reason I shouldn't be doing that ... in which case our shadowy overseers will take me into a corner and lobotomize me, to everyone's great relief

j$

J$ has been lobotomised.
Carry on with the game.

@J$ and jon. I think the anonymous judging adds to the mystery. It allows an educated guess, but leaves that feeling of not knowing for sure. It also takes away the ability of "playing to a judge". If I knew judge 1 seems to like a certain type of music and he is marking me low, I might be inclined to pander do judge 1's tastes more. But if judge 1 is someone different each week, I can't do that. I'm guessing that may have something to do with Niv's design.

Jon, you must have a hell of a time with Radiohead. You seem to have a need to know what every song is about. The beauty of CBJ is that his lyrics are so obtuse. Sometimes words are just words. Does not knowing exactly what John Lennon meant when he said "Sitting on a cornflake waiting for the van to come" make you appreciate "I Am the Walrus" any less?

I hope not.

frankie big face wrote:Sometimes words are just words.

frankie big face wrote:I'm a lyric snob!!

This week in Frank vs Frank.

frankie big face wrote:Jon, you must have a hell of a time with Radiohead. You seem to have a need to know what every song is about. The beauty of CBJ is that his lyrics are so obtuse. Sometimes words are just words. Does not knowing exactly what John Lennon meant when he said "Sitting on a cornflake waiting for the van to come" make you appreciate "I Am the Walrus" any less?

I hope not.

Obviously he didn't mean he was sitting on an actual cornflake. He could have been referring to any type of dry, baked breakfast cereal that he was seated on while awaiting that van.

Manhattan Glutton wrote:

frankie big face wrote:Sometimes words are just words.

frankie big face wrote:I'm a lyric snob!!

This week in Frank vs Frank.

Those two statements are not at all in opposition to one another. It must be difficult living in your binary prison.

You're allowed your opinion - I'm merely floating the friendly suggestion of dropping the pretense that it has anything to do with lyrics. You like a song or you don't like a song, something clicks or doesn't, who cares. Jon apparently has a different opinion than you.

But to get upset about him being overly-analytical, when...

frankie big face wrote:there are a few lyrics things there that bother me, at least when I'm listening to analytically

Manhattan Glutton wrote:... dropping the pretense that it has anything to do with lyrics. You like a song or you don't like a song, something clicks or doesn't, who cares.

But sometimes, for example, the only part of the song one likes is the lyric. That doesn't fit the 'on/off' interpretation of aesthetic appreciation, or am I missing the point? probably ...

j$