Whose mindless comments with no worth are these?

Date: May 31, 2006

Whose mindless comments with no worth are these?

Date: May 31, 2006

You cannot blame this on me!:)

OK Bill, can I call you Bill? Anywho, here are the comments to the two songs of yours I was able to locate. I was able to twist up a few letters here and there and got "this sux" so what I need you to do is point out the comments that are in question here, ya know, "this sucks" and "not music" because I have not been able to locate them.

It happens boss, people read one thing, see another thing and say something else. Just the other day some cat thought I made a veiled comment that he may have plagerised a song he submitted. Now how would I know that right? Frankly I thought he stole the whole thing but thats urine under the bridge, so to speak.

You just look though these comments and maybe it will cheer you up to know, I'm here to help ya. Oh sure AW would rather I fall off the face of the world wide web, but hey, that's life right Bill?

Try not to get to discusted there buddy, it might lead you to become disgusted and then you might really be gone.

Good tunes, by the way, not my cup of tea, but had a start a middle and an end.

Jack O'Brien
Tech Support @:
GetaDotlife.com

COMMENTS:
great one WRG, lol

Kind of has a karaoke sound to it for some reason.

Sorry but this isn't a 5 flame song ... I'm wondering why it has that rating??? I'll give you 2 for effort. I've heard a million like this one.

don't go

sounds like an old '60s protest song

Production is good

, Better than the other one. Style a little too familiar but this music has a strong niche audience. (Using the word niche loosly as there are a lot of them.) Personally I don't like the repeating of lines in this song but maybe that's just me? I also thought it was a little long. Good effort.

everything was good, nothing was bad :)

Date: May 31, 2006

This isn't about comments on my songs. This is about comments on others tunes. Richard Ringer for example. I am speaking of the proccess of helpful critisism. I am not complaing about comments on my own tunes. It's easy to hide behind anonymity and not explain one's opinion.

Thanks
William

Date: May 31, 2006

They are just kids and wannabees Bill, I say let them eat cake.

Jack

Date: May 31, 2006

I think the songs with potential tend to get more valuable comments than the songs that just aren't very good. Sometimes a song really does just suck. I try to leave advise and suggestions for decent tunes, and keep my mouth shut on the bad ones. People should ask questions about their songs in the forum where we can really discuss.

Date: May 31, 2006

Good idea Dizzy, and you are correct about good tunes and some really do just bite, I know some of mine does:)

Jack

Date: May 31, 2006

More Mindless Comments

Date: May 31, 2006

RE: Whose mindless comments with no worth are these?

Date: Jun 1, 2006

I agree, it seems most comments are negative here. most raters are holding songs to a (rediculous) set of rules no one knows about. some responses are so musically ignorant, though, they border on genius hysterical! actually, if it really meant anything, I'd be concerned. but what is this really, an exercise in time kill.

Date: Jun 1, 2006

If people can't follow the guidelines set up on the FAQ here, they shouldn't do reviews. For example, from the FAQ page:

Does recording quality matter?
Not really. We have to be able to hear your lyrics but we don't need a full studio production. We can hear a good song buried in bad production quality, and likewise, a bad song can't hide behind a symphony arrangement.

Yet I have read review after review that doesn't address the *song* at all; rather, the reviewer says it's lousy because it doesn't sound professionally produced or it sounds karaoke-quality or they don't like the person's voice, etc. None of that helps songWRITERS get a feel for the quality of the song.

Date: Jun 1, 2006

Shay Penn wrote:

If people can't follow the guidelines set up on the FAQ here, they shouldn't do reviews. For example, from the FAQ page: Does recording quality matter? Not really. We have to be able to hear your lyrics but we don't need a full studio production. We can hear a good song buried in bad production quality, and likewise, a bad song can't hide behind a symphony arrangement. Yet I have read review after review that doesn't address the *song* at all; rather, the reviewer says it's lousy because it doesn't sound professionally produced or it sounds karaoke-quality or they don't like the person's voice, etc. None of that helps songWRITERS get a feel for the quality of the song.

The example provided does not relate to users (as suggested by Shay Penn), but judges. AW isn't going to enforce whether its users take issue with the quality of the recording.

Now, to address Bill's original point:

I would remind you that not everyone who comes to this site is a songwriter. Some are just people who have been turned on to a cool site that has a good mix of music on it. If they were listening to the radio and some piece of crap song from AW was playing, they would say "That sucks," then change the station. Here, those same people say, "That sucks" then rate it 1 flame. We all have thought that a few songs here do in fact suck. Most of us are civilized enough to keep our thoughts to ourself, as dizzy says. But, if I have a song that is a total peice of crap, I want to know that people think that. Of course, it would be nice to get some valuable suggestions on how to make the song better, but I don't expect that everyone who leaves a comment is willing or able to leave constructive songwriting feedback.

Date: Jun 1, 2006

First off let me just thank William for starting this. Second let me just say that hate has no place amoung musicians. Perhaps I was a little fiery in my song "Thank you Artistweekly.com (for hating me)", and for those I have offended, I apologize. Now let me say this, there are some very VERY deranged people on this site, and they hide behind anonomouse comments. Now here are two comments (from the same person) on one of my songs.

"Hi, I am a beautiful blonde haired woman with long sexy legs and sensous lips. I think you're hot. When you did the tempo shift thing I got all tingly inside. I think I have fallen in love with you Richard, are you single? If not, could we get together for some wild hokey pokey anyway? Let me know sweetheart."

"Richard Ringer needs therapy what a **** shot **** dog burp thingy. gosh! You must be mentally puked. I am the blonde! And I want your balls because you don't know how bad you sound!"

Does this make any sense to anyone? For a good friendly music community, I suggest you go over to icompositions.com. You will not be disapointed.

Date: Jun 1, 2006

WM:

Hmmm, so let me see if I have this straight....you have this very songwriter-friendly, encouraging page of things to expect, saying things such as:

... Artist Weekly is an ally and an asset for anyone interested in getting recognition for their labors while improving their skills as a songwriter.

...we don't need a full studio production. We can hear a good song buried in bad production quality, and likewise, a bad song can't hide behind a symphony arrangement.

This is your forum to show off your creation, don't be shy.

....we have a rotating pool of judges to which we are constantly adding... Suffice it to say, these are the folks you want listening to your stuff and they can definitely give you some good advice, so take their feedback with an open mind.

but in reality, the songwriter may *never* see a single comment or rating from a judge at all, and may in fact *only* be subjected to anonymous hate mail. You (or someone on the staff there) said somewhere else that judges' comments are in bold (when present at all, and their rating is never shown), and while I have seen a few boldface comments, I have read many comment sections on songs where there is no judge's feedback at all. So songwriters are given one set of guidelines then subjected to something totally different.

Now, hey, it's your site, so run it however you want, but somethin' bout this arrangement just don't sound right.....!

Date: Jun 1, 2006

Richard Ringer wrote:

* I suggest you go over to icompositions.com. You will not be disapointed.

Well, I was disappointed with this "Apple's GarageBand" What is an apple anyway?

Moving on...A user of the AW site should sign in before they can do anything, post a song(which they do), post to the forum, read a comment. That will slow the junk down that most of you are talking about. Anonymity is working against it. It won't change me, but it will affect some of the mindless, ignorant and stupid...oh that is me.

Well, I think it's a good idea anyway, Don't you Don?

Now make it happen WM.

Jack

Date: Jun 1, 2006

Yeah, that is you, Jack! But, yer right - it's the anon ability to rate, post idiotic garbage about someone's song, et al that is the problem here. Altho, I suspect u r not part of the solution.

Date: Jun 2, 2006

First, let me address Richard Ringer and his song "Thank you Artistweekly.com (for hating me)". Richard - we all thought it was AWESOME and funny. It showed you had thck skin, and a sense of humor, and most importantly a belief in yourself as an artist. The song was a much more constructive (and creative) way of reacting to negative critisism than most have used.

Having said that, we are concerned about the 'Simon Cowell peanut gallery firing squad' mentality that listeners are using in their feedback. We don't like it any more than the artists, and we want to fix it. So instead of listing complaints, why don't we all work together to make the site better? Sure Jack is insane, but he does come up with a *possible* way to fix the things he has gripes about.

So is requiring a login the way to go? Listing usernames along with the feedback? Restricting accounts (once a login is required) to one rating a day on a specific song?

We know we have an issue with the number of songs being submitted as well - the deluge is too much to handle (for me anyway). I want to comment intelligently on every song, but it's hard to do with all of them, so it becomes an exercise in putting quick "that rocks" or "yikes" feedback on all the songs. Again - how to fix it? Should we have $5 entries only (weeding out the herd to only serious users)? Is it better to have less music? Is it better to have more music than you can handle?

I assure you we are trying to come up with a better way to handle and present the Listen page, and at the same time the number of songs submitted has started to die down after the initial "hey, it's free" gold rush feeling wanes.

We try to keep on top of deleting posts with any sort of offensive language, or those that are obviously worthless (I must have missed that "You must be mentally puked" one, Richard - sorry). But should we go into full Big Brother mode and delete any comment we feel isn't 'songwriter-y' or uplifting or isn't long enough? I don't know - but let's all work together, no?

Date: Jun 2, 2006

820,

Thank you 820, to posting on this forum. I believe that requiring a login, and then a username to appear next to feedback would be a good idea. I think that a lot of artists are rather ticked with what I have called "hit and run" comments, you don't know who it is, you have no idea what kind of a musician they are, (if they even are a musician) so you have no basis on what they know as a musician anyway. It's one thing for people to criticize your work, but a lot have frankly just insulted me, and I'm not the only one. The first comment Frozen Entropy (a friend from icomp) got on his song was "NOT MUSIC!!!" who are they to say that anyway? And trust me when I say I have gotten MUCH worse comments. I don't believe that hate has any place among musicians, and I don't think you should write anything about someone (especially an insult) if it isn't something you would put your name beside. So why not require it? I'm not saying that you should sensor comments, and go all "Big Brother", but if an artist wants to say to another one, "Well looky here, Dickie is getting the attention he so desperately craves. Way to go Dick!!", or "Barely even music, on second thought, it's not. Ugh." (some comments I have gotten) I think they should have to have there name beside that. That way we can say, "well lets see whats so great about them" and go have a listen at there stuff, not to mention they will be automatically responsible for there comments. I think that this would make this site more enjoyable.

I don't think that requiring five dollars for songs would be a good idea. Sure you would make some cash, but if it's really about the music, let me say that there are some very very talented musicians who are very very poor. I know if I were to upload a song to the internet, well, I couldn't afford five bucks per song, I know a lot of others who couldn't either. We're "beatniks" if you will, but we're still musicians, (contrary to popular comments) I have never agreed with pay to play, I think you would miss out on many great musicians that way.

I write this because I am a musician, and in the place where I live, hate has butchered music. People who were once friends have gotten so wrapped up in the different musical movements, that they now beat there brother because he is not of a certain "core". I don't play a lot of shows, because most people around here hear me and can't figure out what I am. So why like me right? I am saddened by what such an ugly thing as hate has done to such a beautiful thing like music, and upon joining your website, I was greeted with hate. Changing this would be a change for the better.

~Richard Ringer

Date: Jun 2, 2006

I am certainly glad this discussion is happening! NO TO THE FIVE DOLOLARS A SONG FRIENDS!!!!!

Yes to the name beside the comment!!!!!!!! Yes to the log in!!!!!! I appreciate the response this has recieved.

Thanks!
William

Date: Jun 2, 2006

This thread sucks.

Just kidding.

Point 1:

I aspire to be a better songwriter, just like a lot of people on this site. But you must acknowledge that some on AW are singers only ( I sing too), some produce their own stuff ( I do that as well) or play their own instruments (ditto)…What I want is full feedback, the works, top to bottom, the good, the bad, and yes, the ugly. Maybe not everyone wants a comprehensive review of the “art” or the “artist”, but I do, and I believe I am not alone.

So I’d be really disappointed if this site turned into strictly a writer’s forum. This is about writing, but it’s about the performance too. If you’re a writer only, at least try to believe in your stuff enough to take the time and make the effort to make it audible and intelligible before you upload it. If you can’t sing, get someone who can. If you can’t play…

I don’t think anyone expects full-blown LA New York or Nashville (or London) production to be the minimum standard here, but on the other hand, recording something through your Labtec mic onto your laptop might not cut it. That’s just weak, and it can be frustrating.

Point 2:

I’ll fess up to posting some brazen, and possibly, depending on point of view, cruel comments on other people’s work. I’m not ashamed to say that sucks, crap, s**t are all in my song-rating vocabulary, as are wow, great, best I’ve heard, incredible, etc. It’s song dependent. I seldom rate a song with one or two words, but I often will incorporate my gut reaction to the overall package into my reviews. I try to point out everything I love and hate about a song. If there’s nothing I find lovely, that’s not my fault and I do not feel compelled to lie, either by trying to pick the corn out of manure or by remaining silent.

I think that some have an idea of the songwriting “community” that I just don’t possess. I’ve sat through workshops, meetings and the like during which not a negative comment was shared. I liken it to living with Smurfs, and I just can’t take another spin on that theme. I am not part of the “can’t we all just get along movement.” If you love the land of head in the sand, go there please. Otherwise, be real.

In my view negativity can be extremely productive. Sometimes the best way to improve something is to discard it and start anew. You may not be willing to say that, and you may not find that constructive, but I do. If I post junk, I want you to tell me its junk. For crying out loud I don’t know, and from listening to some of the other postings on AW, that’s not uncommon. We’re too close to our own work to be objective. I prefer honesty to coddling, and in a free society I’d much rather someone tell me my work sucks than just walk away uninterested. Get in my face. Respond. Live. My wife is nice to me. If I want encouragement, I’ll turn to her, or my mom, or my best friend or someone else I know is afraid to tell me the truth. If I want honesty, pure, bold, unrestricted and unmolested by fear of retribution, I’ll turn to the anonymity of AW. Bring on the love and the hate. Tell me how I made you feel, and don't skin it over with niceness.

Richard If you want only nice, start your own site. Call it “compliment weekly” or “PC Forum” or “songs never suck.com” or something. Otherwise, get off your high horse. Bad is bad, no matter how nicely you put it, some of the postings to AW are just not good. Honesty is not a crime, even when brief!

Finally- I prefer the anonymity from both sides, I think AW is nearly perfect as is. It’d be nice if the egoists were prevented from pumping their song ratings by voting for themselves, but registration for listen and rate privileges is NOT the answer.

Date: Jun 2, 2006

I have never said I wanted all nice, I just want a name. Insults are not always worthless, when coming from a person, a punch in the dark is.

Date: Jun 2, 2006

So maybe AW is not for you. "I love it" shouted from the alley is no more or less productive than "I hate it." I 'd prefer not to know who reviewed my songs. I just want to know how I really and truly made them feel. That's enough for me.

Date: Jun 2, 2006

RE: Whose mindless comments with no worth are these? Clarify

Date: Jun 2, 2006

RE: Whose mindless comments with no worth are these?

Date: Jun 2, 2006

Yes jackie, please, really the minor technical hurdles would not be the problem, (Call Jack for Tech support, that's one thing he should be able to provide, hopefully he'll talk you out of it) anyway I'm guessing AW could already see who is logging on based on IP addresses.

In any case, logins are BS. Cookies are BS. Keep it open, keep it fresh and unique. Keep it totally anonymous and in doing so keep it unfiltered, unabashed, and in some cases unkind. Really are you guys that friggin fragile that you can't accept that some of the stuff posted here is trash? The idea that i'll get ripped if I post everything I write is what keeps me from posting the crap. I think I can tell the difference to a degree and i only post the stuff that is at least not painful to listen to. Apparently, lots of people on AW don't have a minimum standard. They rewrite Mary had a little lamb, or on top of old smokey, layer it on an out of tune guitar strum croon it onto their realistic tape recorder, play that onto their built in computer mic...

Anyway, I like rating the good songs and the ones I think are not so good. And I like hiding behind my screen. it helps me be honest with all of you, about what I really think without fear of the thought police, or the voting blocks that are so common in other endeavors.

Again, if you want honest feedback, totally pure and in it's most base form keep it anonymous. Otherwise you'll just get a number rating and no explanation. You'll get nice, or not my taste or great or whatever. But you absolutely won't get real feedback from folks who might already be in the business. Why in the hell would they risk it?

Date: Jun 2, 2006

And by the way, I wouldn't pay 12 bucks. You should be paying me, and Jack, and the other honest and frank people on this site for the feedback that you will get nowhere else.

Date: Jun 2, 2006

I know the site isn't perfect. And I've had a few comments thrown my way that were hurtful mostly because they weren't helpful as well.

I can take a punch as long as you help me up as well. That's mostly what I think the site is about and it's what I try to do when i post comments.

That being said. I have to say I kind of like the site as it is. There is a real charm to not so much organization.

BUT from another angle...

About the monthly/yearly fee -

I'd be open to a more on-line course kind of song writing thing here, where we get put in a group or paired up with a lyricist and we have specific kinds of projects to do. We weekly group back to together and give feedback, make repairs, regroup/give feedback. Then we move on to the next project/assignment.

By the end of the year, we have 12 songs. We then go into the process of cutting CDs and how to market them.

I'd pay for that. Maybe that can be a part of this site.

It would be a bit more controlled with assignments but feedback could still be anonymous.

Anyway, getting off topic...

Date: Jun 2, 2006

I'm just making it up as I go along CA, frankly I could give a rats big old butt where ya'll get to play next.

The crux of the matter is the name, Artistweekly. It should have been MusicianWeeky. Because an artist is one of THE most difficult people to get along with in the first place. They act as thou there is a direct line between the piss in a jar they produce and call art and the god they believe in. This stigma will most likely follow the site for months to come. Not by anything that the developers did directly.

It is the weak black coat wearing people that the word "artist" appeals to. They can **** in a drawer, slam it and record it with fifteen layers of double chorus and then jump off a roof top when you do not "get it."

So it really does not matter if you can "see me" or cannot. The mentality is better suited to a 20-something crowd but unfortunatly some of us are 20-something-plus-20.

Someone related that "musicians" should not fight. That would be the artist mentality I refer to. Have you seen how those PrimaDonnas pitch thier beauty and wealth as if they did it with no help from a soul? Holy crap can't get in his/her way....an artist don't ya know.

Musicians should not fight indeed. Are we different? Are we better? Hell no. Beethoven is better but he is, after all, deed. I bet he never had time in his day to consider what a great freaking artisit he was. And in his day, he was more a rock-n-roll star as anything LiverPool or Californication produced.

In the event that it needs to be said, I mention the Tech Support so there is no mistake that I am in no way speaking for the AW site.

Jack O'Brien

Date: Jun 2, 2006

Deed or Dead, whichever you prefer.

Date: Jun 2, 2006

If you guys would tinker with your songs as much as you are wanting to tinker with the site, this string would be unnecessary. Put more effort into your music an less into this BS.

and please, Leave AW alone! For Crap's sake don't you get it? If you want something else, by all means f'ing go away!

Just my opinion AW. In a word: AW rocks, as is!

Date: Jun 2, 2006

It seems that this subject has arroused quite a few opinions. Some of you seem to have missed the point. If you think I mean in any way that comments should always be *** kissing you are mistaken. As well I didn't say that a change is nessessarily in order. I simply said that if you're going to say something about a song and want it to actually be useful, good or bad, then explain yourself. If you don't want to, then don't. I really don't care in the end if you want to say whatever you want. Go right ahead. In the end I don't have to listen if I don't want. I appreciate the comments I have recieved that tell me something I can use in the future. I'm no kid making demands as you put it jackie, and I'm certainly not snot nosed, stuck up or unappreciative. I really can't believe the offense this has given some of you. That, I would call childish. I know some of you out there agree with my point of view.

William