Who do we believe?

[wta]

Oct 20, 2008, 8:56pm, cameron wrote:I realize that a critique is just one person's opinion, and that there are always other listings... but to me this is one big flaw in Taxi's system. I know Taxi just reflects the industry, but to me, having to get by a screener-- who may or may not share the client's tastes-- just to get somebody in the industry to listen to your song is not a good thing. This is a tricky one Cameron, though I agree with the statement the industry folk call taxi BECAUSE the songs are pre-screened. No screening = no clients to licence music. I've spent much time on this very subject and a few threads have helped in what I'm about to say, though not complicated the following would solve the issue. Here goes... There should be 3 screeners per song submission and each should rate the tune and the songs with a rating of "x" or higher should get fowarded and the rest returned with a critique from all three screeners. That one I offer for free Michael in trade of the great help you where recently, I've got more input on this but I'll save it for a rainy day (I'm one of those guys that companies contract to maximize and streamline marketing, customer relations and the stimulation of profits. , really). '-) wta

[Casey H]

Oct 22, 2008, 5:56pm, wta wrote:[quote author=cameron board=complaints thread=10053 post=95582 time=1224564975] I've spent much time on this very subject and a few threads have helped in what I'm about to say, though not complicated the following would solve the issue. Here goes... There should be 3 screeners per song submission and each should rate the tune and the songs with a rating of "x" or higher should get fowarded and the rest returned with a critique from all three screeners. That one I offer for free Michael in trade of the great help you where recently, I've got more input on this but I'll save it for a rainy day (I'm one of those guys that companies contract to maximize and streamline marketing, customer relations and the stimulation of profits. , really). '-) wtaHi WThe multiple screener thing has been suggested many times before. One thing you have to keep in mind is that it also would dramatically increase taxi's operating cost. How much more would you willing to pay for you membership? For each submission? What would happen (for example) if taxi was $699/year and $15 - $20 per submission? Screeners are paid $xx per hour. To have three screeners per song, you'd have to triple that expense. But it's more than that. The more employees a company has, the more administrative costs- hiring, firing, training, management, etc. It's not practical without raising member fees to the point where there would be few members. There needs to be that "sweet spot" for a business, the balance between their costs and what customers will buy.Taxi hasn't raised it's membership and submission fees since way back in the 90's. Casey

[hummingbird]

Oct 22, 2008, 6:10pm, hurowitz wrote:Oct 22, 2008, 5:56pm, wta wrote:[quote author=cameron board=complaints thread=10053 post=95582 time=1224564975] I've spent much time on this very subject and a few threads have helped in what I'm about to say, though not complicated the following would solve the issue. Here goes... There should be 3 screeners per song submission and each should rate the tune and the songs with a rating of "x" or higher should get fowarded and the rest returned with a critique from all three screeners. That one I offer for free Michael in trade of the great help you where recently, I've got more input on this but I'll save it for a rainy day (I'm one of those guys that companies contract to maximize and streamline marketing, customer relations and the stimulation of profits. , really). '-) wtaHi WThe multiple screener thing has been suggested many times before. One thing you have to keep in mind is that it also would dramatically increase taxi's operating cost. How much more would you willing to pay for you membership? For each submission? What would happen (for example) if taxi was $699/year and $15 - $20 per submission? Screeners are paid $xx per hour. To have three screeners per song, you'd have to triple that expense. But it's more than that. The more employees a company has, the more administrative costs- hiring, firing, training, management, etc. It's not practical without raising member fees to the point where there would be few members. There needs to be that "sweet spot" for a business, the balance between their costs and what customers will buy.Taxi hasn't raised it's membership and submission fees since way back in the 90's. CaseyLike Casey says, this has been discussed before, and it would triple the cost of screening music - not to mention, triple the time it takes to get the results (or for the clients to get the forwarded music). Suggesting that your submission should be assessed by 3 people before being returned or forwarded flies in face of the reality of the music industry, which is riddled with 'gatekeepers' and 'screeners'. One person's opinion is going make the difference between you getting another listen or not, whichever way you do it. You might submit directly to a music publisher, but chances are an intern is going to listen to your submission & decide whether it should move on to the desk of a decision maker.But there is a VERY simple solution if you want a song to be screened 3 times. Submit it to similar listings 3 times, and try to see the commonalities in the response.I signed a song this year (through Taxi) that had been submitted to Taxi seven times over a few months. It was forwarded five times out of seven. So were the 2 screeners who returned it off their rockers? No, they were screening the song within the context of the listing & they felt it didn't fit. The fact that it was signed by a publisher doesn't mean they didn't do their jobs.I'm absolutely not against discussing ideas that might make Taxi better, but... if I were to think that Taxi needs to change so I can be more successful, then I would be, IMO, thinking ineffectively. My goal has been, and continues to be, to figure out how I can make the Taxi model work for me. Here is the secret of every Forward I've ever had: I give the screeners what they are looking for.Sounds simple, but it took me four years to figure out how to do that. When I see an "F", I know I've done my job. And because I did my job, the screener could do his/her job -- and send my music on to the listing party.

[wta]

Oct 22, 2008, 6:10pm, hurowitz wrote:Oct 22, 2008, 5:56pm, wta wrote:[quote author=cameron board=complaints thread=10053 post=95582 time=1224564975] I've spent much time on this very subject and a few threads have helped in what I'm about to say, though not complicated the following would solve the issue. Here goes... There should be 3 screeners per song submission and each should rate the tune and the songs with a rating of "x" or higher should get fowarded and the rest returned with a critique from all three screeners. That one I offer for free Michael in trade of the great help you where recently, I've got more input on this but I'll save it for a rainy day (I'm one of those guys that companies contract to maximize and streamline marketing, customer relations and the stimulation of profits. , really). '-) wtaHi WThe multiple screener thing has been suggested many times before. One thing you have to keep in mind is that it also would dramatically increase taxi's operating cost. How much more would you willing to pay for you membership? For each submission? What would happen (for example) if taxi was $699/year and $15 - $20 per submission? Screeners are paid $xx per hour. To have three screeners per song, you'd have to triple that expense. But it's more than that. The more employees a company has, the more administrative costs- hiring, firing, training, management, etc. It's not practical without raising member fees to the point where there would be few members. There needs to be that "sweet spot" for a business, the balance between their costs and what customers will buy.Taxi hasn't raised it's membership and submission fees since way back in the 90's. Casey Now Casey you're assuming that I haven't considered the increase in costs for this change? Come on man give me just a touch of credit here I'd be a full blown IDIOT to not have considered that. Like I said I've got more on the subject that I haven't shared yet that would take that into consideration as there are many practical ways around the challenge but I'm not going to do so on this forum... Taxi is doing what they want, the way they want to and thats the bottom line but I am thinking is pretty weird how people have an issue talking about the strenghts and weakness of Taxi and how it could better serve their clients... Bottom line, more screeners would be better for the artists and the client and there is no argument for that (artist retention would undoubtably increase as there would be this continual issue being brought up leaving many unhappy non-renewers), is it better for taxi, that's the defining factor and would likely be happening if it could be pulled of in the present framework... '-) wta '-) wta

[Casey H]

Oct 22, 2008, 6:50pm, wta wrote:Oct 22, 2008, 6:10pm, hurowitz wrote:[quote author=wta board=complaints thread=10053 post=95980 time=1224726972]Hi WThe multiple screener thing has been suggested many times before. One thing you have to keep in mind is that it also would dramatically increase taxi's operating cost. How much more would you willing to pay for you membership? For each submission? What would happen (for example) if taxi was $699/year and $15 - $20 per submission? Screeners are paid $xx per hour. To have three screeners per song, you'd have to triple that expense. But it's more than that. The more employees a company has, the more administrative costs- hiring, firing, training, management, etc. It's not practical without raising member fees to the point where there would be few members. There needs to be that "sweet spot" for a business, the balance between their costs and what customers will buy.Taxi hasn't raised it's membership and submission fees since way back in the 90's. Casey Now Casey you're assuming that I haven't considered the increase in costs for this change? Come on man give me just a touch of credit here I'd be a full blown IDIOT to not have considered that. Like I said I've got more on the subject that I haven't shared yet that would take that into consideration as there are many practical ways around the challenge but I'm not going to do so on this forum... Taxi is doing what they want, the way they want to and thats the bottom line but I am thinking is pretty weird how people have an issue talking about the strenghts and weakness of Taxi and how it could better serve their clients... Bottom line, more screeners would be better for the artists and the client and there is no argument for that (artist retention would undoubtably increase as there would be this continual issue being brought up leaving many unhappy non-renewers), is it better for taxi, that's the defining factor and would likey be happening if it could be pulled of in the present framework... '-) wta '-) wtaWilliamFirst do not think you are an idiot at all. But you may have no idea how many people have come on here making similar suggestions who really didn't have a clue about the costs involved. Just to be clear, I do not think taxi is perfect and there is always room for improvement in anything. I'm no different than anyone else in that I don't always agree with their foward/return decisions. But I accept it as part of the business. People should feel free to make suggestions. No doubt about that...Personally, I don't see this one as practical but if you have ideas whereby three screeners can review each submission without affecting cost and therefore membership fees, please run with your ideas. Cheers Casey

[wta]

Oct 22, 2008, 7:23pm, hurowitz wrote:Oct 22, 2008, 6:50pm, wta wrote:[quote author=hurowitz board=complaints thread=10053 post=95985 time=1224727805] Now Casey you're assuming that I haven't considered the increase in costs for this change? Come on man give me just a touch of credit here I'd be a full blown IDIOT to not have considered that. Like I said I've got more on the subject that I haven't shared yet that would take that into consideration as there are many practical ways around the challenge but I'm not going to do so on this forum... Taxi is doing what they want, the way they want to and thats the bottom line but I am thinking is pretty weird how people have an issue talking about the strenghts and weakness of Taxi and how it could better serve their clients... Bottom line, more screeners would be better for the artists and the client and there is no argument for that (artist retention would undoubtably increase as there would be this continual issue being brought up leaving many unhappy non-renewers), is it better for taxi, that's the defining factor and would likey be happening if it could be pulled of in the present framework... '-) wta '-) wtaWilliamFirst do not think you are an idiot at all. But you may have no idea how many people have come on here making similar suggestions who really didn't have a clue about the costs involved. Just to be clear, I do not think taxi is perfect and there is always room for improvement in anything. I'm no different than anyone else in that I don't always agree with their foward/return decisions. But I accept it as part of the business. People should feel free to make suggestions. No doubt about that...Personally, I don't see this one as practical but if you have ideas whereby three screeners can review each submission without affecting cost and therefore membership fees, please run with your ideas. Cheers Casey Thank you Casey, well said mate...

[Casey H]

Hey WilliamA little more... Just has everyone should feel free to make suggestions, people who have opinions as to whether or not a suggestion would work will reply. Not speaking for Vikki, but part of what she may be saying has to do with our seeing a lot of people putting their energy into trying to change taxi when that energy would be better spent on the music. We see a lot of folks come on here thinking that their lack of success is because of a problem with taxi and not accepting the need to change their music.The feedback you are getting is that 90% of the time, the results would be the same even with N screeners and that it adds cost. I know you say you have an idea where it can be done without adding cost but every business instinct I have tells me that just isn't possible. Every additional ounce of energy a business spends on anything has a cost. (No disrespect to your ideas)Although no one is obligated to comply with this request, I know taxi prefers that suggestions like this are submitted to them by email and not on the forum. Best Casey

[hummingbird]

Oct 22, 2008, 7:39pm, wta wrote: Vikki I'm missing the point of what the problem is that someone thinks about these things? Why is it a problem to come to this forum and talk issues through with brothers and sisters of songwriting field? Cameron has an opinion just as valid as anyone's and I wonder why there is this great resistance when someone has ideas that they want to share about taxi’s strengths and weaknesses. I LOVE taxi, yes the way that it is and that’s why I joined but does that mean I can't have questions about how taxi can get even further out front of the pack of the competition? I respect that you don't want things to change and you want things to stay as they are and I respect Casey and what he said about increased costs and I respect Cameron and his opinions as well and these are all just thoughts for discussion. I only hope that the same mutual respect would be shared by all members regardless of how long they’ve been a member of the forum and member of taxi. We've got a great thing on our hands and I ask only that I/everyone be heard in a spirit of comradery and mutual respect on this issue and any other posted here as I very much do like this forum as well and I've made some great friends here and I’d like to be able to say to the people that I bring to join taxi that things are an even playing field for all. '-) wtaI'm not sure how expressing my own opinion is in any way 'resisting' anyone else's. Surely I have just as much right as any other forum member to express my views. And I certainly express them respectfully. Because I disagree, that doesn't make me unfriendly. It just means I disagree. I even disagree with Casey occasionally, but he comes around in the end Quote:I’d like to be able to say to the people that I bring to join taxi that things are an even playing field for all.It IS an even playing field - everyone has the same opportunities. Don't they?

[hummingbird]

Oct 22, 2008, 8:56pm, wta wrote: Vikki you questioned the validity of my right to think about taxi and its strenghts and weeknesses. I interpret that as less than cordial, warm and sensitive to my rights as a fellow taxi forum member... thats all. '-) wtaActually, I didn't address anyone in particular in my post. I was just stating my point of view, and what my personal experience is. In fact, I think I said something like... that it's my understanding that Taxi is open to hearing ideas from members. It was Casey who said this idea had been floated before, and I agreed with him because I remember it. And I didn't say I was against the idea of having a track screened 3 times (the spirit of the idea)... but I did say I am against any change that increases the cost of membership or submissions (the practicalities of the idea). If that wasn't clear, hopefully it is now

[sgs4u]

Oct 22, 2008, 8:56pm, wta wrote: We recently saw one forum member get lambasted for posing a question relating to the critique process. I feel all posts that are presented politely should be honored and respected no matter the content, that would just seem to be good form. '-) wta Yep, that was me, the resident jerk. I wasn't all that proud of my stupid tirade, but it sure got Janine some focused attention, and I bet she's using that new information wisely. Good stuff happens when shit hits the fan. Not always, but I'd say usually. I did notice today that nobody answered a post by the unmentionable ones. I liked that a lot. William, a lot of people come to this forum, and start whining and moaning about how the screeners should just "get" their songs or lyrics. You don't need to fight Cam's battles for him. Just because someone needs to vent, be it FOR or AGAINST Taxi, doesn't make any of us holier than thou, or smarter or stupider, for that matter. I don't know one member show's posted more than 500 times here who doesn't screw up royally once in a while, or who hasn't vented. It's all part of the process. In fact when I was a NOOB here (not all that long ago) I used to routinely fly the flag of the oppressed songwriter and wonder what the hell was wrong with Taxi, or forum members who were ganging up on any particular member. I still disagree pretty regularly with Casey and Vikki. Matto, not so much. He almost always wins every logic war of words. When Matto speaks, we're better of not wasting our time arguing. He's just that smart. Take for example, earlier today Louis made some pretty dumb-ass remarks about country lyric writing. Some guys with pitch forks are ready to you know, castrate him. I'm giving Louis the benefit of the doubt you know, because he's contributed some stuff around here that I thought was pretty cool. Plus, he's from across the pond. Don't mean to say it's impossible to "get" country music over there, but there are a lot of pretty established rules and ways of getting things done in country music land. One of them is, don't piss in your neighbour's pool. But I think maybe Louis rethunk his initial remarks. The truth is - if you are going to write country songs for OTHER PEOPLE TO SING, then your lyrics better be in the 99 percentile of the curve. If you write for your self that's a different kettle of fish. And there is no reason for us members to compare what's on country radio, with what Taxi screeners NEED. There are 2 ends of the bell curve with country music songwriting. One end is, "Badonkadonk," the other end is "I Hope You Dance." As far as I can tell, Taxi is only looking for beautiful, out of this world, thought provoking, heartfelt story lyrics for country music songs. NOT BUBBLE GUM. When Taxi members come on here and start sqawking about how great Led Zepplin or Lenny Kravitz or how great any artists' songs aren't fabulous lyrics, it's a moot point. And yes, we've heard the argument lots before, and it gets boring pretty quickly. There I said it. Vikki didn't nor did Casey. You see Cam and William, nobody had to get a song thru Taxi to get on a Lenny Kravitz CD. He writes all his own stuff. We Noobies are writing songs to get cut by other people. So those songs need to be as good or better than all the professional writers... that are already signed to publishing contracts, THAT ARE ALREADY PITCHING SONGS to the same opportunities you're pitching to. Do you have any idea how stiff the competition is for the 10 to 20 songs a year (from writers not in the aritist's circle) that will get cut and released to pop radio? With country radio, there might be only 5 outside writers that get tunes on the radio in a given year. If you don't know what the available number of opportunities to get a cut, on a HIT CD on the radio, actually are, ask yourselves why not. It looks like that's the ballgame you guys signed up for. If you research only those opportunities, within those exact parameters, then you will see even more clearly your high bar. And you'll stop kidding yourselves that any of your songs are that good yet. The sooner you get to work, the better your odds. We're all dreamers, we songwriters. We dream that our perfect song is gonna get cut, and our life is gonna change. (wait a minute, is that only me?) Well it actually happens, once in a frikkin blue moon. And we would be FOOLS to think that Taxi wouldn't spot that killer song. We would also be fools to think that Taxi wouldn't jump at the chance to be able to tell the world that one of Taxi's members, wrote someone's current hit song. So whichever member is believing Taxi's standards are too high, or that screeners are missing really good stuff, is avoiding what they need to learn. Some people need to learn that the hard way, by pointing their fingers at distractions that pull their focus away from the job they're actually trying to do. And if Taxi's standards are so high that it seems impossible to clear the high bar opportunities, any member is free to go off and figure how to sell a million copies of that song themselves, or find an artist to do it for them. Here's an analogy for us songwriters. Let's say someone is willing to cut your song, and try to make money with it. Are you willing to re-mortgage your house, so that they can have that million dollars in marketing money they'll need to make a million dollars with your song? Some guy's job depends on his ability to recognize HIT potential. He talks with someone at Taxi about what he's looking for. And you think you or i could know better than he does? Good luck convincing him without a fantastic song. Did someone say this was gonna be easy? BUT, there is hope... and a ton of it lives right here on this forum. Because you can't find a better place to learn how to do this thing you want to do. The longer you avoid learning it... well that's up to you. However, every piece of information you need, every person, every opinion you need, are all available right here on this forum. We're going to see this happen in the next couple of years. Some people from this forum are going to strike it rich, because they just won't quit learning. I plan to be around, and to be part of it!