Karaoke Forums

now I reacently had a discussion with someone regarding who is capable of critiquing. They gave an example of someone who they thought was a very average singer setting themselves in a position of critiquing others.

My stance is this...and I will use an analogy if I may. I trained racehorses professionally for 10 years. I had never been a jockey and I wasnt from a family who had trained. Add to that I was a woman and there were few women trainers at the time and most looked like men. Did that mean I wasnt capable of giving a jockey riding instructions and be critical if he didnt follow them?

Conversely, a trackwork rider that will never be a star on raceday can certainly understand how a horse should be ridden and be able to critique a jockey on their raceday ride.

so if we label an average karaoke singer a "trackwork rider" then you can see that if my arguement is correct, then they should be just as capable of giving critique as the stars (jockeys)

_________________
"Be who you are and say what you feel... Because those that matter... Don't mind...And those that mind... Don't matter."

The way I'd phrase what you just said Vik is- if you are a singer - pro or not- your mission is to make an audience happy. 99% of most audiences are made up of people JUST like the average Joe singer- or non singer. So feedback about what songs will go over with a majority and what sounds good to most people from "average" people/singers is critical.

The only difference is that a pro will know not only the generals like "it sounds good" or "I like that song" but they will be able to be specific as to what makes it work or not work. And they can also give help on methods of improvement if they have had instruction themselves

Bottom line is I want feedback from anyone who cares to give it. I can decide for myself if they have a valid point or are way off base.

I don't think the rank means a darn thing and to be honest the only one I EVER gave was to you- I gace you a "9". When I saw what was getting '10's" I was horrified and felt like I owed you an apology for insulting you. Since then I have never even used the rank cuz there is no point. friends are always gonna give friends high scores so what's the use of having it? I'm a pro singer and I don't think I deserve anywhere close to 10's for my subs list- yet given what many sub par singers have for scores...I'd probably be upset if I didn't. I mean the curve is so LOW or that EVERYONE who can carry a tune should have a 10- score.BTW--forgive me the 9 ? At the time I thought I was "complimenting you"

_________________

did it worry me? nah in my own opinion...on a really good day when all things are going my way I can put in a 7.5 to 8 performance.

_________________
"Be who you are and say what you feel... Because those that matter... Don't mind...And those that mind... Don't matter."

And who ANY PLACE after submitting 50 songs can retain a 9 or 10 average ? It's not even reasonable.  The more a person initially subs the further the score will drop for awhile until it likely levels out anyplace from (reasonably) a 4 to an 8.5 to MAYBE in rare cases a 9.. Dunno..  There were a few songs I'd NEVER heard done so tastefully.  A few songs over the course of my exposure to the showcase I stated I'd give a 10 rank assuming I believed in ranking..HAHAHA.. Because they moved me, to me they just COULDN'T be done better, I was VERY familiar with these songs, REALLY liked them, and they were just the best I can imagine and have heard them done to date.. Now breaking down in the critique area WHY I felt these couldn't be done more tastefully was no easy task...  In part when something really strikes me as being a superior rendition I need to be able to explain to myself what it is that made this song so gorgeous and tastefully done..  So the 10 alone means nothing.. It's not the rank that matter unless a person is willing to take the time to substantiate why the find the rendition so fabulous (assuming a person wishes for a critique)..  Rank is easy to give.. But in the showcase the numbers are empty.. They are easy handouts. As I've stated Everybody has boxes of gold stars on their desk, and just freely sticks them on everybodies subs.. BUT, people like it... and I Suppose some need it psychologically, it makes them feel cared about they've received positive recognition, feel as though they've accomplished something positive so it's PROBABLY a good thing after-all for some... or many..  There some psychological need getting filled by all this, otherwise adults wouldn't be falling for it.. It's a positive thing in it's own right, but it's not for MANY of us... SO... I suppose there are solutions, and everyone can remain happy..  Just my responsibility to know my own wants and needs here.. and have an awareness of what's going on around me... so I can get along with others..

I suppose realistically ALL must know they aren't really 9's or 10's after 4 years of submitting songs at the rate of at least one a month, God forbid they should receive an 8.8 they'd just create a new screen-name assuming things fell into such dire-straits and start over again, rather than having to live such an indignant existence here... Yet if most are seemingly happy and can be in Singers showcase, and that rank doesn't cause the majority to go at one-anothers throats, and few lash at others receiving comparable ranks (which appears to be the case, MOST can balance this system meaning that with a couple exceptions -no names mentioned those with a 9.4 don't freak for the most part when somebody else gets a 9.6, yeah I know it happens ocassionally but I suppose for most here this system they've been participating in for years works despite whether to many it's a fairytale or not. It seems moot to try to figure it out if the majority wants things this way and many sub at a VERY high and happy rate);  Maybe the motto is "Just keep it friendly, fun, and treat all well for sharing".  When I really think about it, the fact that it's wrong for me... Doesn't make it wrong...   I believe it's wrong for those that want honesty, and believe they are getting honesty HOWEVER..  All are adults, and worse things will happen..  I guess I'm content having a place for singers who wish to do their thing honestly if it can work for us..  and let the showcase do what it's going to do inspite of and despite any of our feelings.. Fact is,  must are happy.. It works, nothing to fix..  We just need to find our own means of making stuff work.. Some might like what they see in time.. realizing it's a good thing.. others don't care...

and it's bedtime ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

No No,  to me when you perform as a Singer,  I rate you as a singer.  Who you are is a different aspect, if you perform you are being judged on how well  you do the task you set out to do, and you are going to be compared to the big fish.. After all, we all for the most part are using the actual song and vocalist we know as reference points assuming we recognise the song..  The average person if pretty bad might be a 2 to 6 depending on what they are trying to do.. The fact that I try hard, and my timbre stinks given what I wish to do drops me considerably. If I sounded like a singer rather than a non-singer trying to sing, that MIGHT be a 4 or 5.  I have a ways to go.. I rank myself as I'd rank ALL others, no favoritism, because an audience has no mercy either..  When performing on stage, you ARE being judged as a performer in the style you are performing IMHO...  So 4 in terms of singing ability.. Nothing more, nothing less... You sing into a microphone, ears are exposed to it.. You are a singer (or a sadist and masochist much of the time) either way,  you're performing.

Realistically if Jazzybags, Nathan, OK What Now, and several others who've performed are high ranking singers,  but averaged out over many songs admittedly not 10's,  how could I (as a struggling learning, but currently non-singer) be a 5 or 6 ?  That'd put me in the ranking of "decent singer".. Average singer, (not average person) is what that 4-6 rank means to me..  You don't give singers extra points for being humans too.. *at least I don't*  assuming one does that, it gets into other variables, and that's what starts fluff... Well, I suppose anybody has the right to rank as they wish.. I'm not special nor do I write the rules, but this is how I do it..  All are ranked as 1 to 10    From horrid to best ever heard.  Doesn't matter how sweet they are.. Honest rank, enables a person to see honest effort pay off in time and they reap the reward of such hard work in a hard area.. Only fair to EARN rank, that's what feels good..  Singing well is not easy.. It should've be discounted as being easy.

JMO...

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

Yeah, your way of ranking makes sense as well, though to me, it doesn't give enough of a gradient from 'decent' to 'painful'. While I would think I was giving someone a very good rank of an 8 on the SS (and get rocks thrown at me for it ), you might give that same person a 4 or 5, while their friends would all give them a 10 (or 9 if they feel the person is having an off day), thus back to making ranks useless. But yeah, I can see your point.

The 'average singer' was probably me.

But yes, obviously I agree that a person does not have to be a better singer than another person in order to critique them. Otherwise, all of the singing coaches in the world would be the most famous vocalists.

In fact, I've run across several cases where very good vocalists lack the ability to critique other singers. You simply don't have to be able to sing well to have a good ear.

No Seby,  See,  I might think the world of you (which I do),  and still give you a 3-6 as a singer.  There's no guesswork, the gradient depends on THE MUSIC.  Thing is,  rank and judging unless technical diving skills, actual methodology is measurably involved, classical music technique is or isn't correctly utilized in conservative settings , but basically assuming nothing tangible is involved, and form is just aesthetic preference and little more, It's SUBJECTIVE..

(and even in these cases where method makes a difference to most) it's still a subjective area.  So while some might hold up a card that says 8.4,  and others 5.8... I can't argue with a person opinion assuming it's well substantiated hence as we all know NUMBERS, that are empty and without explanation ARE in fact empty useless easy to hand out numbers and mean nothing.. I think we agree... I would NEVER hand rank without substantiating it and the explanation WOULD be detailed in the low or high ranks

(it's just the kind of guy I am)


But let's be realistic for a moment

Let's take somebody like OK What Now, who in my opinion is a top notch singer and is extremely talented ( but even Billy *Who admitted after singing many songs might reasonably assume he might be an 8 rank average rather than a 10*, and not lose any sleep over this... reason being NOBODY is a 10 average after subbing numerous songs)  and this makes sense... As stated when a PRO well respected vocalist sings 50 songs, what is the likelihood (especially in one take settings much of the time) they will maintain a 10 ?   IMHO the realistic likelihood is non-existent..

SO,  If I take my singing ability, and the singing ability of others that sing many songs that are just "good" singers, but not spectacular singers, my concept of 5-6 being Good makes sense..Now while some ONLY rank the person relative to that one person *that too makes a lot of sense*, as long as method is explained and gradient substantiated it's all good; But in my method where people are seemingly competing neck and neck for quality of result Suddenly the 5 or 6 average is NOT so bad.  THink about this.  Realistically, how many in the showcase ARE on average after singing 50 songs even a 6 ?   Perhaps many are ?  Well I'd buy this as the higher end of the spectrum.. There are NO 9's that have submitted 50 songs in the showcase REALISTICALLY,  as it should be for those wishing for some grounding in real as a means for improvement.  To me arts are all about improvement,  we ALL have the most fun when we accept and respect our place, and work within our means and don't step on everybody elses feet in the process.

Thought:

(If average US income was a million dollars,  what would be wealthy about being a millionaire ?)

Pretty easy concept...  Singers SHowcase has reduced itself to a venue where there are essentially only three ranks

8-9-10

however if you get an 8 in the showcase you aren't that good,  if you get a 10 you might be average to spectacular,  there's no longer ANY establishes gradient, numerals mean NOTHING. and what's worse to try to asign value to them as they exist is moot because it's PURE emotion (and baiting) that's going on. Politics only, and kindness of heart, BUT is this wrong ?  Obviously not for the showcase.  It works quite well <shrug>.   These people just know something I don't.  The fact that they wish to make their existence in the showcase comfortable like this and it works MEANS it's their reality.  This has been happening for quite a few years in many singing sites.  FOlks like it... It can't be wrong or unrealistic FOR THEM

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

BUT,  in order to make room for me, and my wishes/needs YES it's wrong for me !

That's the difference..

These aren't less of musicians, and they aren't wrong for creating the comfortable environment for the majority.  Reason being, they are not going to bash us for critiquing in OUR environment when they have the option of avoiding it assuming it bothers them.

In fact, realistically, I'D likely benefit from letting my hair down and joining in.. Yet I choose not to.. I wish to maintain my preference which is the old tough standard of musicianship.. You work and you work hard for your high rank.. Because if it was THAT easy to be a '10',   we'd all be millionaires in an area that to make bread and butter money is nearly impossible these days steadily for MOST in the pop music realm..

SO what is "good singing" ?  Again, TOTALLY subjective..

When I hear a song I know and like,  I have my concept of the "10",  I also have my own concept of whats a shamefully piss poor performance that should never have made it into the showcase because as adults we learn about having standards and decency before "performing it"..

THis is just me.  My tastes, my conditioning, and what I wish for.  NOthing more
It's not anything more than MY fact today

THis is ALL the philosophy of aesthetics.. Fascinating area (and totally generalized and laid out in a very unsophisticated manner),  little is right or wrong if it works at the time.

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

Aww thanks I like you too Steven, and I have a lot of respect for your thoughts on music. And that's not fluff.

I also agree that a person could reasonably rank a person *against that person's own work*, as long as it would be consistent. I feel that there ARE some people in the SS who are consistently 9-10s, at least at my level of evaluation. I just know that they do a truly fabulous, professional quality job EVERY time I've heard them... and I think that given today's processing and sound engineering, it IS possible for someone to be consistently darn near 'perfect' (in understanding that TRUE 'perfection' is pretty much impossible). But that's just my opinion. If you're talking about raw 'live' performances, I've never heard a singer who does a great job every time.

Uh yeah... and when you see THOSE songs getting 10s??? ooookaaayyyy

Actually, I find that my own ear changes over time (ESPECIALLY regarding my own stuff), to the point where I went back and listened to my old subs today and found myself truly embarrassed about some subs I was fairly happy with when I put them up... and feeling somewhat proud of certain subs I thought were 'meh' at the time.

I listened to 'white rabbit' and honestly, I thought my performance was pretty stale and lifeless with VERY obvious weak breath support, just as an example, while I now think 'Smaller God' was one of the best performances I have ever submitted (aside from the bad quality of the recording).. still with some weak spots though. If I had been able to get the kind of power on White Rabbit that I had on Smaller God, I would have rocked it. =p Why I can't pull that kind of stuff out ON DEMAND is beyond me. I guess it's called 'lack of training'.

I just reread what I wrote and it's inaccurate.  I'm not sure if I can have a concept of a "ten".  Reason being the upcoming "10" has yet to exist and is based on many things, I've only heard what I like thus-far ?   Does this make sense ?  Tomorrows 10 MUST be better than anything I've heard to date so how can I have a concept of it yet

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

I have to say, I was impressed today. I went through and listened to all of the 'C' songs on the front page and only found ONE vocalist who I thought was severely over-ranked. It looks like SS might be moving up (though I WAS disappointed to see some raging fluff flying in one spot) YIKES!!!

Seb I wonder if it would be best to direct folks to the critique me thread and do it there so those that are tender of feelings dont get their knickers in a knot?

I wasnt around when you were last here but I know from what you and others have said that you kinda got dumped on when you attempted to give advice.

I would hate to see the same thing happen again as I feel you have plenty to offer in the way of advice.

_________________
"Be who you are and say what you feel... Because those that matter... Don't mind...And those that mind... Don't matter."

I think Vicki has a good point.  they are content over there now... Don't poke them with a stick, or they'll coil and strike !  People that wish for honest critiques will come here, it's a VERY easy thing to do. It involves nothing difficult or tricky.. In time Critiquing might work in the showcase, but why impinge the process ?  The showcase will evolve at it's own comfort rate, or will stay the same.. There's no need to insist on Critiquing in a non-critique friendly environment just because the category exists..  As VIcki stated,  it's going to end up burning you out unnecessarily, let those that TRULY care to be a part of the process click their mouse, and enter here.. It shows they've taken the step, why should you take any more steps after being shot down ?   Nobody is going to train the showcase, folks do as they please.. but critiquing unfortuneately still will likely go against the grain in that environment.  Minimize chances of getting slapped in the face again.  Fact is a few of the same folks that DO NOT want critiques SILL sub for critique over 2 years later. Difference being, nobodies critiqued them since... One came back after a heitus, obviously doesn't wish to have critiques but still subs there.. Not sure why.

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

Well of course you guys are right... but daggonit... it just BURNS MY TAIL that people are still abusing the C category so badly, and that well-meaning people are AFRAID to use it correctly!!!

I critiqued oh I don't know.. maybe  10 songs yesterday and I only ranked one of them (gave it a 5 - Steven probably would have given it a 2 or 3 ). It was the worst of the lot and I did it because I just COULD NOT STAND IT!! So far, people haven't come in behind me screeching, but they will. The heck with it. I don't care!! So they will come in and knock my songs down to 3s I actually think that when it starts, I will just go back and change all of my old subs to 'just for fluff'.

That'll teach em

I'm sorry guys, and as I said, MOST of the C songs (yesterday) were decent songs. A few were VERY good. And then, there was one that needed a lot of work. Trying to be fair, I went in to the person's profile, thinking maybe they were having an 'off' day. =p

Well, they had a couple of songs that were good enough not to make me wince, but an OVERALL RATING between 9-10!!! There was one song in particular rated 9.3 that was just BAD. I might get called out for talking about a particular singer, but if so, I'll deal with it. THEY are the one who put themself open for critique.

I know that my rank on that first song, caused them to get an 8 (so far) instead of the 9-10 they are normally getting, but I don't feel a bit bad about it. That is the EXACT type of situation that makes the whole ranking thing ridiculous.

Being the stubborn person I am, I'll keep it up (off and on) until something changes to accommodate the situation. Otherwise it's ridiculous and I feel like I'm at a playground where the 'bullies' won't let anyone else sit at the tables. I'm not one to be bullied.

lmao ya know something Seby you are just ornery enuff to be appealing

_________________
"Be who you are and say what you feel... Because those that matter... Don't mind...And those that mind... Don't matter."

bwahah

Thanks... I like you too.  :dancin:

Welll BOTH you beeyotches are appealing to me! I never rank anyone. I leave whatever comments I feel "appropriate" if they are someone who can take or someone who has asked for it- I willpoint out clunkers and obvious problems...but if they are someone who got all egoridden and put a "C" when I know that they only want "J" comments- then yeah...I'll fluff the living Sh!T out of them.

But even then-I can usually find SOMETHING to say that isn't a bald faced lie and is still complimentary. I may also give people who are improving but still "not great" very positive comments over someone who I know is awesome but didn't really try that hard on a particular sub. It's all discretionary. Whenever I do say anything that is less that positive- I say THAT first then follow up with very posotive points to soften the ouch factor.

Some have gotten their panties in a wad-and asked me who the hell I was to give them advice.  :whistle:  I Pmed a resume to a few- (and I may not be to do all and be all singer of the world- but I do have a bit of experience under my belt and make a living from singing)---now they seem to be more open to advice- not just from me- but from others. I also have noticed some who were the biggest fluffernutters on the planet= being a bit more honest too. So maybe there IS hope.

I told a few that accused me of trolling for comments that I only sub once a week or so... just to be a part on both sides of things. I don't think it's fair to say things to people and NOT ever allow them an opportunity to return the favor( be it a positive or negative thing) And I also comment on people who have never said word one to me either on my songs or in reply to my comments ALL THE TIME. I comment when it is needed. Yes- there are some that I check out because they are my friends - or I am returning the courtesy- but mostly I go straight down or up the list and listen to as many as I can fit in a sitting. I also told one or two that jumped me in Pm's for my comments, that I would be happy to bypass them is they didn't appreciate what I had to say..none took me up on that offer. So even if they gripe- I think deep down everyone wants to know what people really think about their subs. You just have to be tactful when possible. There is never any reason to be malicious or petty and comment unjustly. Those people who use comments like a weapon DESERVE to be raked over the coals. Someone recently really hurt my feelings on here and I just let it slide and did -and will continue to leave positive comments for them...or tactfully critical ones if needed. Emotion has no place in comments( unless you are telling them they moved you in some way) ...neither does friendship...But courtesy DOES- It is a favore to take time to hear someone and comment on it---wether you are doing the listening or receiving it....all you need to do is consider each individual and what they are trying to gain...and choose your words carefully...and try your best to be supportive. That's jusy my teeny little ole worthless opinion.  :drunk:

_________________

awwww  :dancin:  :dancin:



Yeah, that does help. I try to start positive, mention the 'room for improvement' stuff, then end on a positive note. It's not always easy. =p We've also gotten a better quality of singers in the C category than we had when I was here before, so that makes it harder for me to give a helpful critique. It's much easier to critique those with obvious flaws such as timing and pitch (though I'm sure people tire of hearing about them ).



no kidding?!?! I'll have to watch for that.



Yes, mostly... and I've been surprised that (at least so far), I haven't gotten the kind of flack from my critiques that I once did. However... I also notice that I'm not seeing the 'pseudo-diva' crowd on here that we once had. There were a handful of self proclaimed starlets who thought they had much more talent than they actually did, consistently subbed in the C category and turned really nasty if you did anything but worship at their feet. Go back and look at some of the comments on MY subs and you'll see what I mean. There are a few on there that make me look like Mother Theresa. The worst thing though, is that they were not only mean, but I think, dishonest. I value a good critique, even on myself.



I agree completely and even when I had experiences with people who came in and 'sniped' me really badly... though I was not always kind in my replies to them (I'm only human), I would continue to strive to evaluate each submission on its own merit, whether they were good to me or not. If the performance was really good, I would happily say so, even if they had just flamed me.

There were some on here who eventually actually liked me.. and I think still do
and most people are actually courteous in response to my critiques, but that could just be the new baby pic.