Specificity in feedback

[Casey H]

Hi Casey

Absolutely! Very pleased to be working with someone from the forums already, hopefully with more to come!

Hehe - these are just a sample of returns for various reasons And yes, there absolutely is a learning curve here. My thinking is more about how Taxi can help us get up it faster - it's as much in their interests as in ours.

My point about the feedback is that "more contemporary" doesn't really tell me anything. What precisely wasn't contemporary about it? Where's the gap between me and the reference track? What could I do to make it more contemporary?

You can squeeze a lot of that information into the very small space available, is what I'm saying For example, if I've come up with something a bit dated, they could say "you sound a bit more like [x] - try comparing that with the reference track".

It's more about how the feedback could be improved.

Hi Matt
You're asking for way too much info on a Y/N listing for which historically you used to get nothing but YES or NO. This is one reason why Taxi had a lot of heartburn giving ANY info other than Y/N on these listings. Every comment raises questions. Appreciate the info you DO get! It's not designed to hold your hand through every step... Just to point you in a direction.

I have to throw this back on YOU. What have YOU done to learn how to make your music more contemporary sounding? Have you read Robin's books? Attended the Road Rally? Watched Taxi TV? (Last night's with Steven Guiles was amazing and there was a lot to learn about how Steven learned to nail the listings). I'm happy to hear that you are collaborating. That's a good step.

We are deep into this thread and you still haven't posted any examples.

Best,
Casey

[MattCurious]

Hi Casey

I totally get what you're saying. I'm afraid I'm one of those people that's always looking for improvement both in myself and others - hence picking up on the relatively marginal change Taxi could make in its approach. I do see that it creates a bit of a bind for them, though.

I haven't posted any examples because I'm not sure that helps the debate, which is about the feedback mechanism rather than the tunes I've put through it. Happy to take advantage of the offer in future, though - thank you.

In terms of self-improvement: this is my first year with Taxi so I'm afraid I missed the Rally. I hope to attend the next. I wasn't aware of the books but will look them up, thank you. I'm lucky enough to work with some talented, successful, full-time writer/producers in the UK who are very generous with their time. I spend a great deal of time listening to common reference artists in the areas I'm interested in. (Although I'm in the process of refining these, so that's a work in progress.) I'm making (I hope) good use of the forum - contributing where I can - and am pretty much writing/mixing as constantly as it's possible to do with a full-time job etc. Having shed some responsibilities, I hope to do more in 2014. (There is, for example, a networking event in London on 27 January).

But because I'm all about improving and increasing the type and volume of information available to me, any additional insight the individual screeners can offer would be awesome.

Similarly, when I have something I'd like specific advice on, I'll be sure to post it I've already had some great insights from the forum that have helped me immeasurably for the songs I've posted and each subsequent one.

Hope that clarifies where I'm coming from.

[andygabrys]

hey Matt,

I appreciate your viewpoint and all that Casey et al have said.

had a thought about "contemporary" - its a shifting target. And its something that likely can't be taught from a book or set of specs. But it is something that you can create over time through listening and trying out new approaches.

That I think is key to the whole issue - Every time you do a new production or certainly a new style (for yourself) its like an onion skin or peeling an onion. You think you see what you need to do, and you do it. Then you get feedback or maybe just do some more listening and all of a sudden there is a new deeper level that you listen at, and as a result you create at.

As you cut down some number of layers, your productions move from unusable, to usable for some things in some styles, to being universally usable for production music (if that is what you chose to focus on).

In your last post you mentioned a lot of things that are key to moving forward:

1) Listening to good ref material
2) building your list of contacts (publisher, library, music supervisor, TAXI or not TAXI related, its all part of the same pie)
3) face to face time with others doing similar work.

[Russell Landwehr]

Have you considered that in your early returns, there were "mechanical" flaws that over shadowed the more ethereal reasons in the recent returns. Maybe you've now fixed the production problems that were holding you back, and now it is time to zero in on "style." And Style is the absolute HARDEST area to give specific pointers in just a sentence or two.

Russell

[admin]

Hi Matt,

You could also send the songs/tracks in for Custom Critiques and get much more elaborate, specific, and detailed info. But I'm not trying to upsell you. We barely even mention the customs for that reason, but the members who get them seem to love them.

I noticed that you're pretty early in your TAXI arc, and I think all of us on this forum have seen this play out over and over with relatively new members during the course of history here. We (meaning TAXI) question ourselves all the time. We'd be arrogant if we didn't. But what we find time after time is that the screeners are right much more often than they're wrong.

A couple things that verify that:

When members complain about a return on the forum, we ask them to post the full listing, their submission, and the critique in full. Inevitably, the first coupe of responses from fellow members are fairly kind, "Wow, that's a really cool track Bob," or "I love what you did with the vocal sound." As the thread gets longer, the members almost always vote with the screeners. Nobody's ganging up on anybody... it's just a very honest, experienced group of generous people that hang out here, and they know that they learned from hearing the truth, so it's best to be truthful to others.

Virtually everybody who is now successful was NOT in the early stages. And I think all the successful people will tell you that they can always look back on what they did a year ago, and it rarely sounds as good in the rear view as it did on the day of creation or the day they started a thread like this.

The second thing that tells me the screeners are right more often than wrong is what we see on TAXI TV. I would estimate that at least 90% of the time when we play songs that were forwarded and returned on the show, the viewers vote the same way the screeners did. And most importantly, all the folks who watch TAXI TV learn a lot by hearing what worked and what didn't. Sounding contemporary is a very difficult thing to describe in trying to help somebody become more contemporary.

It could be the snare sound, kick drum sound, the amount or type of reverb, the vocal melody, the vocal attitude or lack thereof, the synth sounds, the guitar sounds, the lyrical approach, the song's subject matter, dated production, etc., etc., etc. It could be one of those things, some of those things, many of those things, or all of those things in just one song or track. It's impossible for anybody to TOTALLY help you sound more contemporary.

They might point out that the drums don't sound modern, but can they be expected to tell you to move the mics three inches further out, add more overheads, try dynamic mics on the toms to get more crack, shorten your reverb by .75 seconds, try a hall instead of a plate reverb, add more kick drum to the blend... where does it stop?!!! And what works in one context could be totally off base for another song or track.

And then we could move on to the melody not sounding modern enough. Try different intervals, don't use minor 7ths in this kind of song, try ascending here but descending there because that's what the cool young bands do these days... and then onto the guitar sounds, the overall mix, the vocal attitude, the sound and age of the vocalist... it's nearly endless, and the combinations and permutations nearly infinite.

Could you expect a golf coach to teach you how to swing a 3 wood like Tiger Woods in a few lessons? No, it's a combination of many elements -- where his feet are, the club head speed, how far back he brings the club for one distance vs another, open face, closed face, grip, how much hip rotation, where his head is, where his eyes go and when... we can list all those things, but it's the instinct that brings all the right elements together at the right time, in the right way, for the right shot that make Tiger's shot nearly impossible to replicate. And the only way to get close is to watch him a thousand times, and TRY to replicate it TEN thousand times.

In other words, it's not easy, there's no quick fix, and if you're not watching TAXI TV, going to the Rally, and understanding that the screeners would rather forward you than not because it's just easier, then take a deep breath, and sit down and play your song or track for some strangers. Then play them any one of the referenced songs, and ask them, "which one is better," and "which one sounds more contemporary?" Ask them if your song sounds at all similar to the ref track. Don't tell them that it's your music! Tell them your trying to help a friend figure out if their music is competitive, and see what they say.

Let mew know if they disagree with the screeners most of the time.

I know it's hard, and my heart goes out to every musician who ever paid us to help them. It's a laudable act of courage, and we have tremendous respect for all who dare try us. Not only do those who are honest with themselves survive, eventually they thrive. I hope you thrive.

Happy New Year,
Michael

[admin]

And as soon as I finished typing my tome, I opened my email and found this:

Dear Michael,

Back in 2011 my goal was to license my music, but I had absolutely no idea how to move forward. Like many people, I initially thought music licensing would be easy but it soon became apparent that there were various challenges.

I decided to join Taxi and started watching Taxi TV and attending the Road Rally. I can’t even begin to tell you how much I learned at my first Rally thanks to your panels and the tips and suggestions from generous Taxi members. My co-writer and I realized that we needed to change our approach. We started writing for the listings and trying to implement what we’d learned.

As 2013 draws to a close, we now have five songs in two different music libraries thanks to Taxi. Some of these songs have been pitched to major TV shows. It is extremely difficult to reach people at that level. I hope that I will be emailing you next year with news of our first placement.

I want to thank you and your staff for your help in making us better songwriters and business people. For explaining the intricacies of this industry and for showing us not only how high the bar is set, but also giving us the feedback we need to get to that level.

Wishing you, your family and all your staff the very best for 2014!

Michelle

Happy New Year again,
Michael

[Len911]

There's a study called, "Flawed Self-Assessment". It offers insight on why it's difficult for a person to see themselves or their work objectively. That's generally why we see the flaws so easily in others and fail to see the same flaws in ourselves or our work. Human nature I suppose.

"In making this argument, we wish to provide evidence for two observations. First, the forces that influence social behavior,
including self-behavior, are complex—and people rarely have all the information they need to render accurate self-judgments.
Therefore, achieving accurate self-knowledge is an inherently difficult task. Second, even when people do have in hand certain types of information that would lead them to more accurate self-assessments, they tend to neglect this information, which leads them to worse assessments than they are capable of. Thus, people in many substantive and consequential circumstances hold opinions of themselves that cannot withstand objective scrutiny."

http://faculty-gsb.stanford.edu/heath/d ... 0Views.pdf

How many problems are a result of neglected information from the listings?

It sort of emphasizes the critical value of objective opinion through either the screeners, peers or both!

[MattCurious]

I feel like something needs clarifying here, because the majority of responses seem to assume I'm complaining about a lack of instant success (just add water).

I'm not bothered that I'm not hugely successful at this point.

I'm not bothered that I'm getting returns.

My view is that the feedback could sometimes be more targeted.

I hope that clarifies things. That really was the be-all-and-end-all of the point. Please therefore don't think me rude if i don't add further to the thread.

I am, however, grateful for the advice. In particular, I think (hope) Russell has a point, and maybe my next challenge is more of a stylistic one than a technical one. That might explain why the recent feedback is comparatively vague.