Taxi's A & R

[bwrenhewmach]

Here we go again.Hi groover I don't know if we have met or not. I would like to talk to you off site so I don't piss all my friends off again. We all just made up by having a group hug and tea together. I promise I won't slam you or Taxi. I think your data base ideal is a kick ass ideal and would be a great service to the Taxi members even if we had to pay extra for the added service. Take care mild Bill

[mojobone]

If you want to know who your screeners are, why not take it to Peer To Peer? Your friends may feel the need to stroke you, but strangers won't lie.

[Casey H]

Oct 27, 2008, 11:33am, feaker wrote:wowI'm all stressed out reading all of this. I need to take a nap.A slight sidebar thought:When you post a song in "peer to peer", you eagerly await comments on your new creation.The trouble is that critiques will come from friends you have made on the forums. One tries to be professional, but you still don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.If you send your song to taxi, and you don't get forwarded, you always have in the back of your mind the screener might have errored in some way.I would like to see a thread called "anonymous evaluation" be created. That way you would have one more tool to identify your song's value. Just a simple form ( less detail than taxi's)This way you could get an "honest" opinion of your project. Only negative problem, if you only received a 6.6 average, you might not decide to submit a song? You would be however getting a multifaceted unbiased evaluation rather than from just one screener.Jumped the thread, I know, Just trying to figure out a better way?I love all you guysPaulHi PaulI've seen some pretty honest reviews around here along with the nicey-nicey ones... You are right, friends tend more to pat each other on the back, but I think there are quite a few here who pull no punches. What I've learned though is one of the best techniques is to ask 2-3 folks you trust, off-line. I get the best reviews (in terms of brutal honesty) that way. Of course, you don't want to ask friends to listen to a lot of songs in a short time. Some folks will say more when they know it's not public.Cheers, Casey

[Casey H]

Oct 28, 2008, 8:15am, groover wrote:I haven't read all of the replies in this thread but its obvious to me that there needs to be some sort of system for redress within Taxi as the reviewers often don't know what there're talking about. I had a song rejected because the screener thought a womans voice was used to much: it was a synth line. Another passed on a song for an "authentic funk" listing . I knew my song was dead on but the screener relegated it to west coast funk. They suggested more Earth Wind and Fire which those of us who are old enough know wasn't a funk band. Not only that but I heard a song that was forwarded for this listing and it was Doc Severinson style funk ;not authentic at all. Some screeners act like its 1957 and they're in the Brill Building. How can they apply the same old standards to chill and other new genres? If a posting is asking for authentic how can we be sure the screener knows what authnetic is. And why can't the screener be politely challenged when they seem to be wrong. I've been a member for 8 years and have spent $1700 and haven't made a dime. I've done better elsewhere in recent months with the same songs that were passed by Taxi. I'm unlikely to rejoin until there is more to offer the member other than put down after put down with no recourse. For the money I've spent that should retain the songs that I've had forwarded in a database listing style and mood and notify me when a matching posting comes along. As it is ,without any accountability ,Taxi seems a worse and worse deal. Sometimes I get those emails from Michael Lasko touting all the successes and I want to reply but you can't even get to him directly. Thats pretty lame.I do have to ask. In your 8 years, have you ever contacted taxi about a review that was "off" such as indentifying an instrument wrong or a possible wrong genre? I am not writing this reply to defend taxi. I'm curious if you've ever talked to them about these issues.I'll take Earl Grey... plain... Casey

[bwrenhewmach]

Never mind

[groover]

Oct 28, 2008, 10:02am, hurowitz wrote:Oct 28, 2008, 8:15am, groover wrote:I haven't read all of the replies in this thread but its obvious to me that there needs to be some sort of system for redress within Taxi as the reviewers often don't know what there're talking about. I had a song rejected because the screener thought a womans voice was used to much: it was a synth line. Another passed on a song for an "authentic funk" listing . I knew my song was dead on but the screener relegated it to west coast funk. They suggested more Earth Wind and Fire which those of us who are old enough know wasn't a funk band. Not only that but I heard a song that was forwarded for this listing and it was Doc Severinson style funk ;not authentic at all. Some screeners act like its 1957 and they're in the Brill Building. How can they apply the same old standards to chill and other new genres? If a posting is asking for authentic how can we be sure the screener knows what authnetic is. And why can't the screener be politely challenged when they seem to be wrong. I've been a member for 8 years and have spent $1700 and haven't made a dime. I've done better elsewhere in recent months with the same songs that were passed by Taxi. I'm unlikely to rejoin until there is more to offer the member other than put down after put down with no recourse. For the money I've spent that should retain the songs that I've had forwarded in a database listing style and mood and notify me when a matching posting comes along. As it is ,without any accountability ,Taxi seems a worse and worse deal. Sometimes I get those emails from Michael Lasko touting all the successes and I want to reply but you can't even get to him directly. Thats pretty lame.I do have to ask. In your 8 years, have you ever contacted taxi about a review that was "off" such as indentifying an instrument wrong or a possible wrong genre? I am not writing this reply to defend taxi. I'm curious if you've ever talked to them about these issues.I'll take Earl Grey... plain... CaseyFor the first 7 years I've taken the rejections on the chin and haven't questioned the reviewers. I've always (and still do) felt that I had a lot to learn and it would be better to glean what I could to improve than try and shoot back a rebuttal. I've really worked hard this year to turn out better tracks and I did call regard the authentic funk song that I mentioned. I talked to a woman who was the head of screeners. She basically said that she agreed with the screener. The screener had said the track needed a change or bridge and needed more grease. I pointed out that it went to a change after 16 bars and asked what is "grease". All of the tracks ratings were 7 or 8 but it was rejected as "not quite close enough". All I'm saying is that for the money I've spent I deserve a little more than that kind of subjective analysis. I don't want to be stroked 'cause I know where to post to get that but I'm bringing hard work and expertise to the table and the person who rejects my work should be doing the same. I don't want a reviewers name or such nonsense but I just want a reply mechanism so I can ask if they heard the change that was there or they noticed the 4 layered guitars before they wrote that it "doesn't quite go back far enough to James Brown,George Clinton ..etc". I guess what gfot me in this case was hearing a song for the same posting that was forwarded . It was not authentic funk. It was good and the writer deserves success but the reviewer has some explaining to do in my opinion.I never play my songs for my friends cause I know they'll say good things but I'm wondering if the service I've paid for is really paying atttention or knows what they're talking about.

[aubreyz]

Oct 27, 2008, 4:04pm, bwrenhewmach wrote: Hi Aub Delane Sorry guy for the sarcastic response to your post. It was uncalled for. Just seemed like the whole forum was ganging up on me that night and I wrongly lasted out at you. sorry guy. Thanks. I certainly didn't mean to pile on. Just sharing my thoughts. And even when those thoughts differ there's no point in getting personal. I can be pretty blunt and have a tendency to say what I think, but then again, don't we all. No worries, and thanks again for the apology.Aub

[flyingtadpole]

Oct 28, 2008, 8:15am, groover wrote: I've been a member for 8 years and have spent $1700 and haven't made a dime. I've done better elsewhere in recent months with the same songs that were passed by Taxi. Just looking for a bit of clarification here. The $1700 spent over 8 years, $200 and a bit each year roughly, is on song submissions, right? So you put about 40 songs through Taxi each year, right? (something over 320 songs?) And no forwards, or were there some forwards but no deals following?Tim

[groover]

Oct 28, 2008, 1:56pm, flyingtadpole wrote:Oct 28, 2008, 8:15am, groover wrote: I've been a member for 8 years and have spent $1700 and haven't made a dime. I've done better elsewhere in recent months with the same songs that were passed by Taxi. Just looking for a bit of clarification here. The $1700 spent over 8 years, $200 and a bit each year roughly, is on song submissions, right? So you put about 40 songs through Taxi each year, right? (something over 320 songs?) And no forwards, or were there some forwards but no deals following?TimThe 1700 is the cost of membership and renewals for 8 years. Thats what Taxi has cost me. The number of submissions and their costs are another matter that I'm not counting. If you don't agree with my take on Taxi or the idea that I'm criticizing don't proceed with an attempt to defame me or the quality of my works. This is the tone that I'm getting from your math and conclusions. That would be childish. Why not debate the ideas regarding added value for long term members and the quality of the screeners on their merits. The issue is do screeners know what they're doing and should there be a system for nominal rebuttal to a review. Also shouldn't Taxi add value to the money spent by long term members by tagging submissions that are good and entering them in a database that could be used to alert long term members when there is a listing that they should be aware of. I want more for my money than rejection after rejection and faulty critiques with zero accountability.

[Casey H]

Hey GrooverI honestly didn't pick up any tone in Tadpole's post. I think he sincerely was asking for clarification. The math makes sense at $300 for the 1st year and $200 each for the 7 that followed.I'm not here to debate about taxi-- that's done all over the boards. (Yes, I believe in what they do) ... It didn't work out for you for whatever reason; there is no way I could offer any opinion on what those reasons were unless you were interested in discussing some specifics (which you may not want to)... To do that, you would have to post a link to a song and lyrics, the listing, and the full review. Tadpole's question as to how many submissions and forwards you had is a valid one regardless of math. A lot of forwards and no calls is different than very few forwards. I hope you'll provide more specifics as above, but that's up to you. If you are truly having successes through other methods, that's good. Not everyone finds successes the same way.Wish you the best,Casey