Taxi's A & R

[groover]

Oct 28, 2008, 5:18pm, hurowitz wrote: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,CaseyI may be wrong but I don't see the response the same way. Saying I've spent 1700 over 8 years can only mean 1 thing. $300 1st year + $200 for 7 years = $1700. What is the point of asking about the submissions? Honestly if someone had submitted 320 with no forwards over 8 years they would have no case to make and nothing to say. This is the implication inherent in the reply.I won't go any further with specifics because then the issue becomes my songs. Song quality is subjective so any discussion would likely breakdown among those who like Taxi as is and those who would entertain the idea of change. I don't need feel good responses or slams from folks who feel that doing so would stand up for Taxi.Again the issues are screener acountability and enhanced value for long term members. To clarify screener accountability all I'm asking is for a simple 4 sentence box to be added to the form that the Taxi screeners send to the submitter. Then the person who had specific non subjective points (like "that sound is a synth not a female vioce") could add a response and send back. There need be no further action as far as I'm concerned. But at least the screener would know that they got it wrong and could try and do beter next time.

[aubreyz]

Edited my own post... here's what I meant to say:1-800-458-2111Aub

[flyingtadpole]

Oct 28, 2008, 4:57pm, groover wrote:Oct 28, 2008, 1:56pm, flyingtadpole wrote: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. Well, I was staggered at what the money converted into if you were talking submissions. Which is why I asked for the clarification. So, the cost was the Taxi membership fees. But surely it's important to have some idea of whether we're talking the use made of the Taxi membership, or just the cost of membership itself? I can't jump up and down at Taxi for their membership fee if I don't use the service, as I didn't for nearly a year earlier on. And in reading your post there is no way of actually understanding the extent to which you've used the service. And it is still an unknown.One thing the learning experience on Taxi drives home is there's no such thing as crap music: the question is does the music fit what the punter wants at the appropriate quality. So I have no interest in defaming anyone's music and don't believe I did in that initial post. Whatever, there is no way to experience your music, even if it's directly in my line, since you have provided no link to your music, no hosting website or myspace or Taxi website, and I can only find four posts of yours in this forum, all in this thread. Quote: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 We have been debating these sorts of issues. As you said on entry, Oct 28, 2008, 8:15am, groover wrote:I haven't read all of the replies in this thread... Reading the thread would be a good idea, because of the debate covered, which has been quite heated at times, but out of which a number of interesting ideas have floated. The database you suggest is an interesting idea. The programming though is something of a nightmare, for anything more than the primitive sort of record keeping I and I assume you do in relation to what was submitted for what and why it got returned. It's up to Taxi to balance costs and gains. I can see Taxi as trying to strike a balance between costs, efficiency and the service to members. You and I clearly differ in our viewpoints on the balance they're currently using. But, in the end, if the service wasn't delivering to me, I'd go elsewhere.Tim

[Casey H]

Oct 28, 2008, 5:46pm, groover wrote:Oct 28, 2008, 5:18pm, hurowitz wrote: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,CaseyI may be wrong but I don't see the response the same way. Saying I've spent 1700 over 8 years can only mean 1 thing. $300 1st year + $200 for 7 years = $1700. What is the point of asking about the submissions? Honestly if someone had submitted 320 with no forwards over 8 years they would have no case to make and nothing to say. This is the implication inherent in the reply.I won't go any further with specifics because then the issue becomes my songs. Song quality is subjective so any discussion would likely breakdown among those who like Taxi as is and those who would entertain the idea of change. I don't need feel good responses or slams from folks who feel that doing so would stand up for Taxi.Again the issues are screener accountability and enhanced value for long term members. To clarify screener accountability all I'm asking is for a simple 4 sentence box to be added to the form that the Taxi screeners send to the submitter. Then the person who had specific non subjective points (like "that sound is a synth not a female vioce") could add a response and send back. There need be no further action as far as I'm concerned. But at least the screener would know that they got it wrong and could try and do beter next time.GrooverI think the suggestion that there be a way for members to provide some feedback to the screeners is a good one. You should email it to taxi.However, where we disagree is on not getting into the songs themselves and "song quality is subjective". Of course, there are subjective elements (not everything though!) but if you are critical of taxi then without the songs and listings I can't accept your feedback with credibility. You could have great songs that sound like 1970 which you are submitting for modern rock (example)... Your lyrics could need a lot of work... Your audio quality could be poor... There could be weak choruses... and so on. You sound experienced enough to know that. And to boot, you won't even tell us about forwards vs. returns.If the only point of your initial post is the suggestion about feedback to screeners, that's constructive. It's just the rest without real facts as back up that I have trouble with.Please note I am answering you with total respect.Casey

[groover]

Oct 28, 2008, 6:03pm, hurowitz wrote:Oct 28, 2008, 5:46pm, groover wrote:I may be wrong but I don't see the response the same way. Saying I've spent 1700 over 8 years can only mean 1 thing. $300 1st year + $200 for 7 years = $1700. What is the point of asking about the submissions? Honestly if someone had submitted 320 with no forwards over 8 years they would have no case to make and nothing to say. This is the implication inherent in the reply.I won't go any further with specifics because then the issue becomes my songs. Song quality is subjective so any discussion would likely breakdown among those who like Taxi as is and those who would entertain the idea of change. I don't need feel good responses or slams from folks who feel that doing so would stand up for Taxi.Again the issues are screener accountability and enhanced value for long term members. To clarify screener accountability all I'm asking is for a simple 4 sentence box to be added to the form that the Taxi screeners send to the submitter. Then the person who had specific non subjective points (like "that sound is a synth not a female vioce") could add a response and send back. There need be no further action as far as I'm concerned. But at least the screener would know that they got it wrong and could try and do beter next time.GrooverI think the suggestion that there be a way for members to provide some feedback to the screeners is a good one. You should email it to taxi.However, where we disagree is on not getting into the songs themselves and "song quality is subjective". Of course, there are subjective elements (not everything though!) but if you are critical of taxi then without the songs and listings I can't accept your feedback with credibility. You could have great songs that sound like 1970 which you are submitting for modern rock (example)... Your lyrics could need a lot of work... Your audio quality could be poor... There could be weak choruses... and so on. You sound experienced enough to know that. And to boot, you won't even tell us about forwards vs. returns.If the only point of your initial post is the suggestion about feedback to screeners, that's constructive. It's just the rest without real facts as back up that I have trouble with.Please note I am answering you with total respect.CaseyI readily accept your point of view and couldn't take any umbradge. I'm not posting my songs as previously stated becasue thats not the point. I think mistakes were made but the point is to esatablish some nominal mechanism that members can use to redress mistakes. Its not enough to call the Taxi office. The issue should go directly to the screener. Of course not in some angry rant or rambling diatribe but just give the memebr 4 simple lines to respond. The screener doesn't even have to read it. However a record of responses outlining mistakes would be noted and at some point a faulty screener would have to explain why they ,for example, mis identify sounds over and over. What system for accountability exists now?Also keeping long term memebers songs on file for listings that beter suit the song would be simple. Just add a few keywords and note them in a database. Synth manufacturers do the same thing now to access 10's of thousand of sounds by noting mood.timbre and such.Take a look at Native Instruments Kore Library.

[bwrenhewmach]

Hey Casey/ groover and all the way I see it The way the screeners work they Taxi has a customer that is looking for the perfect song /songs to fit their needs. The screeners listen to all the songs submitted to them from us the Taxi artist. They filter through the songs until they hear what they think will be perfect for the customer. That is there job like a real estate agent looking out for both parties interest. If the screeners send the customer’s songs that do not fit what the customer wants to many times that said screener becomes unemployed. So it stands to reason to me this is not a personal transaction but a total business transaction. If we the artist are sending them songs that they judge does not fit the bill they would be incompetent if they sent the customer the songs anyway. My point is we the artist need to be mindful that it's not a personal putdown to have our songs returned but a business transaction.On the other hand if they were returning perfect good songs for the job they would be very stupid and maybe mess a chance of making Taxis customer very happy. Therefore it's only logical to me if we have problems getting a song forwarded its because the song does not fit the criteria. Plain and simple. We need to find out why. This is where I got more than my moneys worth out of Taxi because I communicated with the screeners via the custom critique route for a year them helping me hone my music and my music quality to where it was worthy to be forwarded and then the forwards came for me. It dam sure wasn’t because they liked me better than anyone else. If we are not willing to spend time and yes money to become a asset to the music industry they have no need of us and we are just spinning our wheels. Mild Bill

[hummingbird]

Oct 28, 2008, 4:57pm, groover wrote: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.No harm in discussing anything Have you contacted Taxi and discussed your concerns and ideas with them? I'd be curious to know what they said.

[davewalton]

Oct 28, 2008, 6:41pm, groover wrote:What system for accountability exists now?This would be a good question to ask Taxi would it not? I mean if you really wanted to know the answer, this would be a good question to ask Taxi. Since I had a chance to spend a couple of days poking around Taxi with another forum member, here's the basics. First a screener has to have an extensive background in music. The resume's are pretty impressive as are the screeners that I've met there and at the Rally. Second, there is extensive screener training. Third, the screeners are screened internally with music being rescreened randomly. Not so much different from a manufacturer that takes samples and checks them for quality control, etc. Finally, screeners are screened externally by Taxi members.There are also two other "systems for accountability". The first system is us. Not by posting here on the forum, but by calling Taxi and bringing to their attention critiques that are either questionable or just out-and-out bad. Recently somebody posted a critique where the screener gave a comment "vocals are good when the person is singing" or some similar comment amongst a short list of other questionable comments. Those things need to be brought DIRECTLY to Taxi's attention. The second "quality control" system for screeners is the listing clients. If a screener were to deliver a mish-mash of good/bad tracks with nothing in common with what the listing company was looking for, that listing company probably wouldn't list again. Even if they did, Taxi would certainly get an earful. I have to say that those of us that do get forwarded on a regular basis and pick up deals from time to time, we don't do that because of the incompetence of the screeners.

[hummingbird]

Q: How does Taxi screen music? How do I know the screeners are qualified? A: Read these threads, they are informative:Taxi Land - Dave - Part Ihttp://taxi.proboards27.com/index.cgi?bo....read=1185818579Taxi Land - Dave - Part 2http://taxi.proboards27.com/index.cgi?bo....read=1186789715Taxi Land - Dave - Part 3http://taxi.proboards27.com/index.cgi?bo....read=1188921401Taxi Land - Screener Queries - Horacehttp://taxi.proboards27.com/index.cgi?bo....read=1185748342

[heinsite]

geeze-us!i guess this thread goes on...CASEY (I'M NOT YELLING, JUST ON QUICK REPLY)--that is the the total lump sum of MY taxi value up 'till now, and that is the forum and the connections i've made.your suggestion about OFF LINE critiques by those you trust IS A DAMN GOOD ONE! it works, it hurts sometimes, but it's better than "great job"--although when i personally post a tune that deserves that byline, i know it, and accept it! again, good wisdom man...uh, like there's bad wisdom?...LOLthe best,warren