Hanging in There

[Cameloide]

To be honest, us yanks can't tell a Brit from practically any other non-US English speaker. If a faux pas was committed, it wasn't intended; I am sure.

If you're a screener and can't tell a Brit from an Aussie (which in a song isn't the easiest thing in the world to be sure of) wouldn't it be better then to not be so cocksure about it and use another reason for the return? There are hundreds of other generic reasons one could give that wouldn't have upset her, even simply "the vocal isn't quite up to the standard the brief is looking for".

It's similar to when they critique real horns while assuming they are midi generated. It's like they are unnecessarily trying to prove how acute their ears are but instead end up doing the opposite.

[AlanHall]

To be honest, us yanks can't tell a Brit from practically any other non-US English speaker. If a faux pas was committed, it wasn't intended; I am sure.

If you're a screener and can't tell a Brit from an Aussie (which in a song isn't the easiest thing in the world to be sure of) wouldn't it be better then to not be so cocksure about it and use another reason for the return? There are hundreds of other generic reasons one could give that wouldn't have upset her, even simply "the vocal isn't quite up to the standard the brief is looking for".

It's similar to when they critique real horns while assuming they are midi generated. It's like they are unnecessarily trying to prove how acute their ears are but instead end up doing the opposite.

I do agree with you; in my defense I don't remember the text of the critique.

If I was a screener, anything that doesn't sound like Dick Van Dyke's accent in 'Mary Poppins' won't be British to me

[Casey H]

There are hundreds of other generic reasons one could give that wouldn't have upset her, even simply "the vocal isn't quite up to the standard the brief is looking for".

That would be asking the screener to be dishonest and not to their job right, even it they are making a mistake as far the track vs. listing requirements, etc. We really don't want dishonesty. That would be 1000 times worse. And knowing ML as I do for many years, one thing Taxi prides itself on is honesty.

Casey

[AlanHall]

It's similar to when they critique real horns while assuming they are midi generated. It's like they are unnecessarily trying to prove how acute their ears are but instead end up doing the opposite.

On the other hand, I do understand that the industry has a certain expectation what real "horns" should sound like. So, if there are fake horns that do sound like that expectation they will be preferred over real ones that don't. It's just another rule in this big game, I suppose.

Tom

+1

[Cameloide]

That would be asking the screener to be dishonest and not to their job right, even it they are making a mistake as far the track vs. listing requirements, etc. We really don't want dishonesty. That would be 1000 times worse. And knowing ML as I do for many years, one thing Taxi prides itself on is honesty.

Casey

Negative, I'm not suggesting they be dishonest. I'm suggesting they do their job right by being a little more humble/self-aware... to be precise when they can point to a direct issue and to be more general when they can't totally narrow the issue down.

As an example say there's a track with a guitar sound that's not working, and I sent back feedback saying, "swap the Strat for something like a Les Paul and try using a sm57 on an amp instead of or in addition to the di amp sim". The person gets the feedback and says, "WTF? I did use my buddy's Les Paul & I did mic the amp with a 57 with no di. This guy has no idea what he's talking about, lol". I will have lost credibility, even if it's the worst guitar sound in the world and does kinda sound like a Strat through an amp sim. And the person receiving the feedback will understandably be torn as to how seriously to take feedback from somebody who so assuredly overshot the diagnosis.