[zircon]

We judges have identified common problems with submissions and compiled a list of these common problems in checklist format. We'd like for listeners to use this checklist when listening to a WIP and formulating their feedback so that the problems we usually see in submissions are addressed at the WIP level.

The checklist is a supplement to personal, specific feedback. Don't forget to leave personalized and specific comments (positive or negative) that elaborate on or have nothing to do with the checklist. Positive reinforcement is great, so please use it when you want. You don't need the checklist for that. The point of the checklist itself is to guide listeners towards giving feedback that improves a submission's chance of acceptance onto OCR.

If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions regarding this form, particularly what a listed critique means, please post here.

Ready to critique? Start by copying and pasting everything below into your new reply post!

The Feedback Checklist

ARRANGEMENT / INTERPRETATION
[ ] Too conservative - sticks too close to the source
[ ] Too liberal - not enough connections to the source (too much original writing)
[ ] Too much direct sampling from original game audio
[ ] Borrows heavily from non-source material (eg. a theme from a movie)

PRODUCTION
[ ] Too loud
[ ] Too quiet
[ ] Low-quality samples
[ ] Unrealistic sequencing
[ ] Generic/cliche sound choices
[ ] Drums have no energy
[ ] Overcompressed (pumping/no dynamics)
[ ] Mixing is muddy (eg. too many sounds in the same range)

PERFORMANCE (live recorded audio/MIDI parts)
[ ] Timing not tight enough
[ ] Wrong notes, general sloppiness
[ ] Poorly recorded
[ ] Bad intonation

STRUCTURE
[ ] Lacks coherence overall (no "flow")
[ ] Not enough changes in sounds (eg. static texture, not dynamic enough)
[ ] Pace too plodding
[ ] Too repetitive
[ ] Too short
[ ] Abrupt ending

PERSONAL COMMENTS (positive feedback, specifics on checklist criticisms, any other thoughts)
[write here]

Using the Feedback Checklist

Say you like a remix but just have a couple of complaints. To make things easy to read, put an X next to the problems you believe are there and simply delete the problems on the checklist that you feel do not apply. Here's an example:

ARRANGEMENT / INTERPRETATION

PRODUCTION
[X] Too quiet

PERFORMANCE (live recorded audio/MIDI parts)

STRUCTURE
[X] Not enough changes in sounds (eg. static texture, not dynamic enough)

PERSONAL COMMENTS
Wow, really awesome mix! Just throw it through a normalizer or maybe a little bit of brickwall limiting to get the volume up higher. Also, the drum loop going throughout was sort of bland; try switching that up once in awhile. Arrangement is great though.

[Escariot]

RE: This post.

CONSTRUCTION
[X] Too formal.

COMMENTS
I'll stick to my own method of giving specific thoughts at specific times within the mix, though I'll take these specific points into consideration.

[Rozovian]

The checklist is good, it covers everything I can think of, it's the tone and its implications that I'm concerned about. However, I think the formal tone is a bit detrimental. It can easily feel like a robotic reply.

If you use the form, we strongly encourage you write additional comments regardless of whether all of your criticisms were covered. Tell the artist what you DID like, any specific spots that need work (eg. :33 - the drums stop too early) and so on.

I think that the best feedback is encouraging, constructive, and personal feedback, the kind that says that someone took the time to listen to the music and not just the flaws. The form will easily become a restriction. Knowing how the posters can lazily write a wip post, the formal feedback can get very discouraging.

The near-requirement also an unnecessary complication. A similar form could be applied to the Reviews forum, which would most likely reduce both quality and number of reviews. Or the Requests, which nobody would read or care about...

For that matter, I've been reading the Judges' decisions since I joined, they're some of my favourite things to read on ocr. Shouldn't the form first and foremost apply to the official votes posts? While the judges generally comment in-depth (some more than others), the structure of many votes is haphazard and the language casual or lazy.

I think the list will be a useful resource. It's a good idea. The formal tone, imho, is neither.

[Nutritious]

Well, personally, I don't see anything wrong with a formal tone, necessarily (assuming you're talking about the descriptions on the checkboxes). It helps keep the form concise with still getting the point across.

By going through a form like this, the person giving feedback is reminded to listen for specific points that will affect the song's chances of passing the panel. There's still plenty of room for personal comments in whatever tone you want to write them.

[Radiowar]

Not sure that the solution to weak feedback is using a broad, impersonal and generalized template, no matter how comprehensive it might be. I can see it working as a guideline to help formulate criticisms before actually posting (i.e. with sentences and paragraphs), but I wouldn't want to see it posted in one of my threads.

I'd also add that I've never noticed a huge problem with feedback not being detailed enough, if anything the weakest feedback around here is where people try to hard to write the music for them (I've been guilty of this in the past). Providing a checklist makes this way too easy for people to just go through the list and check off things without giving it proper thought. At least by organizing their thoughts into coherent sentences and paragraphs people are forced to really think through and understand their comments as they apply to the piece their commenting on.

[zircon]

The checklist is good, it covers everything I can think of, it's the tone and its implications that I'm concerned about. However, I think the formal tone is a bit detrimental. It can easily feel like a robotic reply.

I think that the best feedback is encouraging, constructive, and personal feedback, the kind that says that someone took the time to listen to the music and not just the flaws. The form will easily become a restriction. Knowing how the posters can lazily write a wip post, the formal feedback can get very discouraging.

The form doesn't prevent you from writing additional comments at all. You just write them at the bottom. This concern is without merit.

Also, the way the points on the checklist are written is very similar to how a judge would vote on a mix, which I think is ideal. Again IMO the problem with this forum is that feedback is often too wishy-washy. People need to know the problems with their song, and the form has an awesome list of problems that we (on the panel) see every day.

If I were looking for feedback, I would rather be able to briefly skim four or five posts to see "Oh wow, they all checked 'Too Liberal'" and then read closer to see WHY they checked that. Many of these criticisms would not necessarily even occur to people until they read them here.

I'd also add that I've never noticed a huge problem with feedback not being detailed enough, if anything the weakest feedback around here is where people try to hard to write the music for them (I've been guilty of this in the past).

The problem is that people give inaccurate feedback that isn't easily understood. People submit all the time where people on the WIP forum essentially say "this is great, sub it." Perhaps by asking people to view possible criticisms in a comprehensive list, they would be more inclined to speak up about issues that they did hear. I would RATHER people checked off several boxes of criticism without going into detail than post something like "this is great, sub it." We don't need any of the latter.

I emphasize that people on this forum need more criticism, and I don't really think it matters if it's "personal" or not. The idea of this form is taken from a very successful music service called "Taxi" where all submissions are screened by individuals via a form like this. It makes it really easy for any musician to see where their weak spots are instantly.

[Dr. Rod]

I think having the formal tone is a really good idea....helps to keep things objective, and prevents things from being too vague or ambiguous. It should definitely be used in conjunction with more specific, detailed feedback. I think itll help a lot of individuals looking for comments on thier WIPs, as well as help those critiquing know what parameters to judge upon.

[Rozovian]

It'll scare off the newbs and bother the regulars. That's my prediction. Time will tell if it'll work or not.

IMO the problem with this forum is that feedback is often too wishy-washy. People need to know the problems with their song, and the form has an awesome list of problems that we (on the panel) see every day.

I agree, and am probably guilty of it myself, often. I understand that the submissions contain loads of these. But how many of the submissions come via the wip board? I've recognized a handful of names in the decisions, I see many more that I don't recognize. I've replied to post wips here in the past months, I should recognize most of them.

How busy are the judges, really? Are they too busy to come here to show where the bar is at in occasional wip replies -which would help the reviewers (such as myself) as well as the aspiring remixers (such as myself). I did a quick search for your name on the wip board, as well as a few others. Here's the number of posts we've posted the past year:

chz, 4 posts
jjt, 8 posts
liontamer, 48 posts
darkesword, 7 posts
zyko, 1 post
big giant circles, 8 posts
malcos, 2 posts
zircon, 20 posts
other judges, no posts
djpretzel, 4 posts
--
davidicus, 48 posts
dafydd, 64 posts
tensei-san, 94 posts
rozovian, 182 posts
--
Judges and djp: 102 posts
Huey, Dewey and Louie, and the newbie: 388 posts

A fraction of the posts are on our own wip threads... and this includes some Judges. Btw, my number would be higher, but I haven't been here a full year yet. I think it'd cancel out our own wip threads.

I'm not saying this to show off, I'm saying this to let you know how the most frequent reviewer feels about the feedback form. I don't want to use it as anything but reference. If other wip reviewers feel the same way, we're looking at a significant decrease of wip feedback, unless the Judges are willing to spend time on the wip board being good examples for the rest of us.

Yes, it says "strongly encouraged", I know. What happened to "please" and "thank you"?

--

Note that my objections are towards its formal language and implied requirement, I appreciate the checklist and will most likely use it if I continue reviewing wips.

[The Coop]

Nice form, but it strikes me as far too focused on the negative side of things. If there was that much time and effort put into creating something for people to point out what's wrong with the mix in that form, perhaps some time should also be taken to make it so they can point out what's right with the mix in a similar fashion. You provide a method for people to easily point a mixer away from the bad directions they're going with sounds, notation and production, and that's cool and quite helpful. Criticism on a remix is a good thing, as it can help avoid the various pitfalls that beginners (and 'experts') fall into. But like any art, if you don't bring up what is working along with what isn't, and focus solely on what's wrong, then there's a good chance that the parts that showed promise are going to get fucked up and lost.

You've got the areas to help a listener hear and respond to what needs work. How about giving the listener similar help in hearing and responding to what's going well?

[zircon]

Originally Posted by Rozovian

]I agree, and am probably guilty of it myself, often. I understand that the submissions contain loads of these. But how many of the submissions come via the wip board? I've recognized a handful of names in the decisions, I see many more that I don't recognize. I've replied to post wips here in the past months, I should recognize most of them.

A lot of subs come from unknowns, and a lot don't. Glancing at the first page of the WIP forum alone, looking at thread starters only, here are people that have submitted before and have been rejected, with no posted remixes: Vidilian, Hoboka, majeliss, PrototypeRaptor, Shinnymetal, pu_freak, POCKETMAN, electric concerto, DeathBySpoon, and 1makes2. Again this is only thread starters on the first page, I'm not even counting all the people that actually participate in the forum as a whole.

Most of those people have subbed multiple times and continue to get rejected. Do they have no talent, or do they just need better advice? I think the latter.

How busy are the judges, really? Are they too busy to come here to show where the bar is at in occasional wip replies

We do that in our actual votes. If people read our votes and observe what actually gets posted to the site they will know where the bar is. Otherwise, yes, we are very busy.

Originally Posted by The Coop

Nice form, but it strikes me as far too focused on the negative side of things. If there was that much time and effort put into creating something for people to point out what's wrong with the mix in that form, perhaps some time should also be taken to make it so they can point out what's right with the mix in a similar fashion. You provide a method for people to easily point a mixer away from the bad directions they're going with sounds, notation and production, and that's cool and quite helpful. Criticism on a remix is a good thing, as it can help avoid the various pitfalls that beginners (and 'experts') fall into. But like any art, if you don't bring up what is working along with what isn't, and focus solely on what's wrong, then there's a good chance that the parts that showed promise are going to get fucked up and lost.

You've got the areas to help a listener hear and respond to what needs work. How about giving the listener similar help in hearing and responding to what's going well?

I already addressed that. It would unnecessarily bloat things to have a positive version of each of the negative points. If you have positive things to say, you can write them underneath the checklist. I also said you're free to remove points you're not using. So, say you like a remix but just had a couple complaints. Here's what you could write.

ARRANGEMENT / INTERPRETATION

PRODUCTION
[X] Too quiet

PERFORMANCE (live recorded audio/MIDI parts)

STRUCTURE
[X] Not enough changes in sounds (eg. static texture, not dynamic enough)

OTHER COMMENTS
Wow, really awesome mix! Just throw it through a normalizer or maybe a little bit of brickwall limiting to get the volume up higher. Also, the drum loop going throughout was sort of bland; try switching that up once in awhile. Arrangement is great though.

Is that so hard to do? Does it seem overly negative?