|
Foreword
Introduction
Rules
Schedule
Entering
Judging
Introduction
The Process
The Categories
The Scale
The Comments
Conclusion
Registration
Prizes
Updates
Results
FAQ
Resources
Statistics
Contact
Changes since MC5
About
|
The song comments of MC6 are one of the most valuable aspects of the judging
process. It's these comments that help the composers evolve--this is one
of the reasons the Music Contest gets better every year.
Song comments also take the most time on the part of the reviewer. It's
inevitable that a good number of the judges will spend the last few minutes
before the deadline, hacking away at the song comments, trying to get them
sumbitted in time. Do yourself a favor and start early.
First and foremost, start early.
If possible, keep a text editor open when you're listening to the song and
write comments as you review. This serves three purposes: first, you can't
finish a comment in four minutes, so this will force you to listen to the
song at least twice, which is a good thing. Second, it will allow you to
point to specific patterns or samples, which is very good practice. Third,
it duplicates your time, so you're not listening once and writing about it
later.
If you can't open a text editor while you review, then at least put your
comments on paper so writing it up will be faster later on.
Now, what should the comment look like? You're striving for a few things, here.
- Be clear.
Try to use well-formed english. Capitalize your sentences and end
them with a period. Try not to use colloquial language.
- Be thorough.
Comment on all five categories.
Tell them what you liked. Tell them what you didn't like. Give
thoughtful reasons for each one. Explain what areas could be improved,
and, if you can, how to improve them. Use sentences like "I marked you
down in technique because..." and "I gave you a high originality rating
for your...".
- Don't be creul.
Do not flame. Do not bash. Use clean language.
- Don't get side-tracked.
The composer doesn't want to hear about your pet. They don't care
what you had for breakfast. Keep to the music. It's okay to explain
how a piece makes you feel, or to briefly mention what the song reminds
you of, but don't go on tangents--they waste your time as well as the
composer's.
- Don't try to guess who wrote the song.
Comments like "You sound like Necros" and "This sounds like a Purple
Lotion song" are not recommended. This is an anonymous contest, and it
should stay that way. Try saying "Your overall sound was very
professional" or "You make an excellent use of overdriven sounds" instead.
This is a good example: the reviewer covered all the bases, gave reasons, and
used specifics to point things out. My only complaint is the lack of
caps.
"cheezy 80's style pop. the annoying hihat in channel 20 needs volume
changes. 'E' way overused over channels 6, 7 and 8 for the main melody, and
the lead is cut off in too many places which sounds harsh. the key change
comes too later at pos 9; my ears wanted it sooner. the bass in the tune is
too repetitive, and uses pointless panning slides. main melody needs porta
effects in pos 13 to make it sound smoother, and sounds very strained in
places. the sample set is okay but i spotted a few that i've seen several
times before, most notably the drums. still, this type of tune doesn't
demand especially original or high quality samples, which reflects the above
average sample score. the tune faired badly in the originality section
mainly because you take the jeroen tel influence too far throughout the
piece. more key changes would have kept the song fresher and more
interesting, and would have earned it a higher 'form' score. mediocre, but
style is fairly covered."
This example, from the same song, was miserable. This is the kind of comment
we want to avoid... Please don't do things like this! The reviewer makes a
judgement, gives one simplistic comment, and then bashes the composer:
"It's awful. How the hell did it made for the second round, I don't know...
It's so simple it hurts! The author didn't really care about the quality, I
think."
This
reviewer was a bit terse (because he was up late writing it the night
before the deadline, tee-hee!), but he managed to cover all of the categories
to one degree or another. There are a few specific examples, a few reasons,
and he doesn't say anything rude. This is a passable review--this is the bare
minimum you should strive for.
The echo on the bassoon is a bit much in that first pattern. The phrase that
the pizzi strings are playing is great... what mode is that in? The volumes
are all well-controlled... Pattern 6 is a very nice break. The 'lead'
(piano?) could use a little more rhythmic variation-- it seems to be playing
Half- or quarter-notes all the time, and the ending was abrupt. Excellent
song.
This is another so-so review. The reviewer gets the right level of detail,
but doesn't mention much about mood or originality. The last comment is one
worth talking about: he comments on a factor that has nothing to do with the
score. Should you do this? Yes, if you feel so inclined. As you recall,
comments are there to help the composer make better music, and this is a valid
point, even though it has no effect on its placement in the contest. Lastly,
the opening comment about not being a rookie probably wasn't necessary. He
could have instead said something like "tracked with more skill than you
would expect from a rookie."
"Not a bad job at all, if this person truly is a rookie. I won't bitch about
the drumloops since I use them myself :), the rhythm was cool. The acid
samples in the beginning are a little too commonplace. The lead starting at
order 32 worked quite well; wish they used it more/earlier in the tune. But
the sineleads after that, as good as they were technically, were a little on
the loud side, making them not fit in perfectly. Not that it affects the
song, but maybe they should've put a little pause at the end of the tune so
it didn't immediately restart."
Move on to the next page.
Round 2 online vote submission
|