2 very different reviews by the same reviewer, same song

[DaNolman]

Faith,

I'd just like to make something clear. I didn't mean to suggest in my previous message that I have the capacity to 'help' you in any way - rather that it's always enervating to work with fellow musicians who have great writing talent and a great voice. I wish I knew a singer who could do some of my own songs justice. Just wanted to set the record straight, lest anybody jump to inappropriate conclusions.

Best regards,
Nick

Hey Nick, absolutely no harm. As one of the other posters said, it's always a compliment when someone asks to co-write. Many of Faith's best songs come from co-writes. The more co-writers, the more growth I say.

Thanks for listening and offering your insight. I'm slowly listening to everyone else's stuff. You've got a lot, so I'm looking for one I can really sink my teeth into.

Mahalo,
Nolan

[DaNolman]

Great singing! Very well made track! Thanks for letting me hear it.

About the review, At least It shows the screener has done her/his job - twice!
S/he has not just copied the sheet s/he had already made.

Also, a song sounds different the second time you hear it than the first. That's well known.

But, I agree it looks odd. Does the screener know? I see there also is a SCREENER SHOUTOUTS Board.

Out of curiosity: was the track forwarded for both listings?

Thakns for the listen and nice words tordenspyd. I guess you're right, the screener did do their job. And yes, a song does sound different when you hear it a second time, especially when they've got hundreds of songs they've got to listen to. I haven't brought this up with the screener yet and am debating whether I should or not. I think there should be some consistency in grading. It's not so much the numeric values as much as the higher and lower points which are all over the place, the most obvious being vocals as the highest and lowest scores ? ? ?

No forwards for either - which I'm totally fine with too

[DaNolman]

Faith: It still astounds me that tunes of this caliber get reviews of such low caliber. I really thought this tune excellent, radio ready, etc. One of the best I've ever heard on TAXI. What really ticks me off are gratutitous comments such as "dated", ""not current", etc., and then this critiquer gives you an offer to "collaborate"? You're already there, don't need his/her help. Ott

Hey ottlukk, wow, thank you so much for those awesome compliments! I really appreciate that!

Whenever I hear notes of dated or not current, I reevaluate and try to listen again with an unbiased ear because dated in the pop would could mean last week's hit! So, I don't take any one person's word as the end all defacto must change course, but I do listen to the cumulative feedback and go from there. I'm the first to admit that some things I hear that I swear is a hit, other people hear as just another returned track! So I take it as all about it being fitting for the listing. This review just threw me for a loop.

[DaNolman]

This vocal and song deserve much, much better production.
Flangey guitar, deep snare, sterile rhythm machine - very 80's
Being a guitarist, I can't help noticing: the solo guitar sound is nice and interesting, but why mono in the center? It ends up being very small and weak...

Vocal is great, both performance and melody. Nice backing vocal lines. Structure is OK.
All the right ingredients are there, but the production leaves so much room for improvement...
Pop music production, for better or worse, is extremely time-sensitive. Anything over 6 months old is worth revisiting prior to release.

Bring the production to the level of your vocal/melody, and you'll have a winning combination!

George

Thanks George. I don't know what a flangey guitar or deep snare are, but I know people who do so they can figure that part out. I really thought it was at least mid 2000's but 80's??? lol

I agree with you that in the pop world, songs have a much quicker expiration date. And then you try to put out something new and never before heard and it's one of those productions that are too experimental or before its time. There's such a fine line.

We have some tracks from 2001 that still have awesome groove. I love those that stand the test of time.

Mahalo for the listen and props. I'll surely reciprocate. Soon . . .

[DaNolman]

forward or not forwarded, who cares about the scores.

I see the scores with equal importance as the notes. I know that the scores can vary widely from screener to screener as each person has their own level of relativity. Someone previously mentioned that it can also vary from the same screener due to the song they just listend to previous to scoring the song in question. But, if the scores are so vastly different, especially when certain categories score highest and lowest on two similar listings, to me, that invalidates both sets of scores for this particular screener.

As if a screener is going to be a robot to score exactly the same...

Obviously, they can't score exactly the same, but they should have consistency. It's like you love steak all your life and then one day you take a bite and discover "damn, steak tastes like poo" right? ?

What the screener has to say is much more relevant i'd say , good day/bad day the notes are much more relevant.

Funny thing is, the notes on both reviews were similar and one line was almost the same verbatim. This is what caused me to go back and look up this particular screener's previous scores. And yes, I do take their notes and use them to improve. I agree that those notes are golden!

If the scoring helps pick up on areas for ideas where to change/strengthen .. great. but here it is just causing you to bust your melon / some illusive search by you as to why it was not forwarded? .... a kind of sneaky sour grapes?
best to forget it as irrelevant to the actual goal, just wasting fun music making time thinking about it

I do see the scoring as a tool to try to improve. I don't think my ears are as good as the professionals and I have to trust that they know when musicianship and engineering are lacking. I can have debates with them about melody, lyrics, song structure, and vocals. At first, I didn't mean to post due to the songs not being forwarded, which I didn't even mention. It was mainly one of those things where you get the review and say "hmmmm, really?". So I really wanted to get the groups feedback to see if there could be reasons this happened.

[DaNolman]

Can't explain the different reviews, who can. It's something they do for you to make you reflect on your song, and they seem to have suceeded in that

I like the song, but I think the opening synth suggests dance, but it develops as a pop song, so it dissapoints somewhat. I would think that if you changed the instrumentation at the beginning, suggesting pop, then it would get a forward because it develops nicely as pop = fulfilled expectations.

justmycentsworth

Thanks for listening and I appreciate your input. I might play around with that.

[DaNolman]

I don't put a lot of faith in number ratings when they don't have a description afterwards. The closer to the extremes, 1 or 10 might have the most accuracy. In the emergency room yesterday I overheard nurses asking patients to rate their pain on a scale of one to ten. I could imagine that if two people actually had the same pain level, the one whom had never had anything more painful than a mosquito bite might give their pain a higher rating, than one who had had kidney stones at one time in their life, even though they might be the same pain
level. I can also imagine that if you listened to a song and rated it an 8, and the next song you listened to blew that one away, you'd almost have to give the second song a 9 or 10, but then later down the road, if the first song you heard was the previous 9 or 10, you might only give it a 7 this time. I don't know what that phenomenon might be called, "the abstract number fletcher-munson curve or what"lol! I guess if I had to rate something with numbers, I'd have to write some descriptions under the numbers to be consistent.

Thanks for your feedback. That helps me understand why songs can have totally different rating values. Another person said that there is also a possibility that two different people used the same screener number. That was the first thing that crossed my mind. You'd think they'd give unique screener numbers since a number already protects their identity and well, there's an infinate amount of numbers right?

[Casey H]

Another person said that there is also a possibility that two different people used the same screener number. That was the first thing that crossed my mind. You'd think they'd give unique screener numbers since a number already protects their identity and well, there's an infinate amount of numbers right?

To the best of my knowledge, that does not happen. Multiple screeners do not use the same screener number. Taxi wouldn't be able to monitor their own activity, do quality control, etc if that were the case.

I agree this is a head-scratcher. You might want to write a nice note to headscreener AT taxi.com, asking about it.

Some possible explanations for such different ratings by the same screener on the same song are:

1. Reviews and ratings are in the context of the listing requirements and the "bar" for the listing. Ratings for a given song on an ultra-high bar listing, might be lower than those on a mid-bar one, for example.

2. It's just one of those things that happens when dealing with humans.

3. The screener needed more coffee.

Don’t let it bother you too much. Writing to Taxi about it makes sense. If you are polite and professional, you’ll always get a cheerful response, at least that’s been my experience. They are as concerned about screener’s performance as we are and work hard to train and re-train screeners.

Best,
Casey

[Casey H]

BTW, Faith...

I think I remember you from way back when, in the Tonos days!

Nice to 'see' you again!

Casey

[ocean]

Strange. I've seen the score sheet as a quick way to see where my weaknesses are. And it's always reflected what I've suspected about my "skills" or lack of. This one's puzzling indeed.

Brilliant tune, by the way.