Karaoke Forums

Who doesn't!

jee

Most asking for rank here would deal with a "1",   as graciously as they'd deal with a person dropping a bowling ball on their new car.


There are a few I believe do deserve a "1".   Giving such a rank would be my way of saying.  "How could you submit something like this?"   (after about the 3rd time).

It would take some work for a person to earn a one from me

I'm still looking out for the day when I'm gonna give a rank between 1 and 3. There are quite good singers around, at least the ones who submit C songs these days. For me I think it's good that people have some self-critique. I wouldn't mind if I never saw any below 7 singers, although eveyone should have the chance to showcase their work no matter how good or bad they are. In fact, my average given rank is rising all the time and it's not because of politeness (what's that? ) but because of the actual raise of skills that I'm feeling in there! So I gotta say I'm still enjoying my time at SS and trying to get into some new brands of music while I'm at it...

jee

If I were to be honest Jee,  MOST are 4-7 singers.  If I give an 8 to a person. That's my way of saying they are spectacular, yet not polished enough to receive the 9. a few important nuances will likely not be there.  I'll give the 10 to the person "I believe" has done the best rendition of the song I've heard. Often more pleasing to my ear than tha original.  The song is technically as close to perfect as I've ever heard. and it emotionally moves me.


If I give a 9 or 10.   That person would likely have received a standing ovation during their performance.  I've heard one or two 10's in the 2 months I've been here.  and about 8-10  "9's" out've the whole history of songs I've listened to.


And for these very reasons.  You'd never find me ranking in a system that doesn't respect or want the honesty of the person ranking.

Steven, I totally agree. I wish more people would think about this the way you do In theory, most are rank 5 singers - not in SS in my opinion, but generally yes. I believe most of the people that would be between 1-5 can't or don't even know how to record their singing or they're just so self critical that they won't sub anything.

jee

I'm not sure if you've ever purchased anything on Ebay.  (0r how easy that would be in Finland for that matter), yet this somewhat reminds me of the Ebay "feedback" system.   This very same type of hostage holding activity works there as well.

There are three ranks you can give a buyer or seller, to show others what you think of your transaction with the other party. Similar bribery takes place,  "Holding out" etc.


After the transaction a person can leave another either negative.    Neutral.   or  Positive feedback. Comments there also.

Leave a negative, you get a negative.     Leave a neutral, you usually get a negative.
The rest of what you see is,

 BUYER    

Positive  (with a comment like)  "I HIGHLY recommend this A+++++++++++++++++++++    seller.  The hamster arrived wrapped in just the perfect amount of bubblewrap. and styrofoam peanuts !!!!"

 SELLER  

"I see you gave me one less plus mark than last time.  Did I do something wrong?"

!!

Yes I know eBay with about 500 successful transactions (all positive feedback from those who left it). This is a good example how the un-monitored ratings work. If it's totally comparable to SS, I don't know. In eBay the retaliation practise is so well-known, that if someone with full positive feedback gets bad service, they sometimes might not leave feedback at all in the fear of revenge feedback. It's kinda sad because it's decreases the credibility of the whole system. Naturally a good rating/monitoring system in eBay would be far more important than at SS. But I could sum this up so that I just don't get people who retaliate on justified feedbacks. I mean what's the point and what does it save or cure?

jee

I completely agree Steven. I tend to give a lot of '8's.... because there are folks on here who are darned good... but I reserver 9's & especially 10s for those 'extra special' performances. There are a few (very few) folks on here who I would give fairly consistent 9s & 10s to, but they seldom allow themselves to be ranked.

I get excited if the rank on one of my subs approaches 9. I get a bit depressed if my sub drops below an 8 (primarily because to me, that means 'eh... it was ok, but not that good') heheh. But, I'm not going to shoot myself over it or anything.

I just submitted a song yesterday that I thought was pretty darned good, but removed it after a couple comments that made me feel it still needed some work. I'll try it again when I feel motivated to redo it. :p

This is what happens with an exploited system.  Even Jazzy (who happens to be the holder of one of the two tens I'd hand out), would receive 8's and even 7's sometimes in an "actual" rating system.... When you see a person with 20 submissions and a 9.8 average, it's just not a realistic rating system.  That just doesn't happen.

Another consideration is,  How fair is it to give a 9 to a person who is normally excellent, yet for some reason entered a sloppy submission ?  If the day has come that people are afraid to hand out anything except 9's and 10's.... This isn't much different than Romper Room.

Sure this is a venue meant to be fun... Yet isn't it childish to give everyone a Gold, or Silver star because they will pout otherwise ?

The day I submit a song in here,  I'll take my "2" bending over cracking a smile like a real man !





Of course you do.   Look what this has become

10= A
9  =B
8  =C
7  = F
6  = F
5 =  You suck and I don't like you either
4 =  I'd like to give you a 1, but you might find out it's me, and others will hate me
1-3= If you lived closer I'd key your car, and put itching powder in your mothers boxer shorts.

This is PRECISELY the reason why I don't sub in the 'C' category.  I am here to have fun, not stress myself out worrying about how the faceless entities on the Internet (whom I will probably NEVER encounter my whole life) rate my subs.  I am an amateur, both at singing AND recording, as are 90% of the people critiquing and ranking.  And this is not to say that amateurs shouldn't be allowed to critique... we wouldn't have Simon, Paula and Randy (and no, I do NOT consider Paula Abdul a pro just because she had a few "professionally recorded" albums.)

I sing karaoke for FUN.  I submit songs here for FUN.  I have been in real life competitions before and have been told face-to-face what needs to be improved, etc.  If I'm in a competition, that's what I'm going for:  Critique and rank.  However, I don't want this place to feel like a competition.  I'm not going to "win" anything if Joe Blow over there gives me a 10 nor will a below 5 rank mean that I am really that terrible.  It also doesn't mean that just because Cranky Franky has an overall 10 rank that he's truly better than all the rest.  I'd wager he's pretty popular and his friends are ranking him high because he's well-liked.  Everyone has different tastes.  Look at Fantasia on American Idol, for example.  I personally couldn't STAND her voice.  But hey, she WON!!  And just because she won doesn't mean I suddenly have to admire her or give her a good rank.  

This is also the reason why I choose not to rank others on here.  Someone else might like Suzy Schmuzy's sub and think her voice is just excellent, but I may disagree.  My ranking her would only bring down her overall rank... and hurt poor Suzy's feelers.  I'm not out to hurt someone just because I don't like the way they sound.  I admire everyone here for their efforts, whether I really like their subs or not, and I think it's great that people keep trying regardless.  My piddly opinion shouldn't matter one way or the other to them.  If I comment on something, I generally stay away from pointing out the "pitch problems" unless they state something about it in their description.  I generally comment on bringing vocals up more or pushing them back some.  Not the overall sound of their voice.

But that's just me.  Those are my convictions and reservations.  To each his own...

_________________

Not totally of course.  Yet if you are familiar with Ebay, as you say you are.  you know that to leave a first rank of a neutral, will usually get you the NEGATIVE in response.  They also say be cautious of the seller with a 2%+ margin of negatives in their profile.  (things have changed somewhat since I worked the feedback, and buyers boards, yet you get the general drift)

How reasonable is it that a power seller with several thousand transactions will have perhaps only 1 negative ?   Sure it happens,  yet given the nature of some of the horrible buyers out there.  This is the seller that fears giving the deserved negative as well. They know to give a negative,  risks getting one in return. The pristine feedback display becomes more of a focal point for many, than the honest aspects of transacting. I suppose a big difference would be, Jee,  Ebay is a business for many,  I could understand how a business person wouldn't appreciate lemon decals pasted all over their store front  :)  Yet singing is an artistic display,  Ego's also get out've whack. In feedback,  as in critique/rank.... People hate the thought of "average".

In this way, the back scratching, and effectiveness of Ebay's rating system, is comparable to Singers showcase. People are A++++++++++++++++++ and "the best in the world",    or negative  "Stay away from this dud".

The inability to live with lifes grey area's.  Meaning  "Who are you to tell me I could stand improvement?"  and  "I'll give you a 9 so you don't hate me" is counterproductive to members helping other members improve.

I wouldn't want friends that feel a need to kiss my @$$, because in most cases,  these people aren't doing that when you aren't around.  All or none mindset doesn't work alot of the time with we average folk. Honesty (not to be confused with vindictive lashing) is the goal of most of my friendships.  Otherwise, if I compromise my feelings and have to lie,  I end up resentful.

I wouldn't want a person giving me a 9, when they are thinking to themselves,  "This guy is atrocious".  Yet sad thing is,  most here want the trophy, they couldn't care less that they don't genuinely deserve it. So it's a cheap mass produced "Grammy", that only makes a person look as if they are a brilliant vocalist.  As soon as they sing...  The world can tell the difference between the real bathing beauty,  and the 600 lb  runway model wearing spandex  :(

For this mentality,  this current setup is perfect.

"You too can be a celebrity"

Well, sure she would... I know I've given her at least one 8, but I honestly don't think I've heard anything she has submitted (for ranking) that would deserve less than that.... at least IMO. I mean, 8='Very Good' and 7='Good', right?

Since 6 is 'above average' I have to figure that 7 is really 'slightly better than 'above average''. Still not 'bad', but I don't think Jazzy WOULD submit something needing THAT much work for critique.

I totally get the whole 'but 7 isn't a bad rank!' argument... and MOST of the folks I hear submitting songs are 7's or less (again, IMO). Of course, many of those are now going JFF (yes, along with some very very good subs). When I hear a sub for critique, I DO try to be as honest with my rankings as I can be... according to the scale as it reads. However, to my ears, a '7' sub is just below a 'performance-level' sub. In other words, you hear the song and say to yourself, "well, that wasn't bad but I would expect more from a performer".

That's why *I* personally am disappointed with myself if I get less than an 8 on a song. That tells me, 'sure, it's not bad for a karaoke performance in a bar somewhere... but this submission shouldn't be in a band or on an album'. heheheh (which is, of course, what I do). Aside from the occasional 'snipe', and the occasional 'fluff-rank' I do think folks here are fairly honest WITH ME on my subs. Cause they know I will be on theirs. heheh But then, maybe I'm kidding myself. *shrugs*



It's fair. You're ranking the submission, not the overall person (at least... again... IMO).



Yay! You're gonna submit a song!! Get crackin' there, buddy! Hey, if you could sing CSNY you couldn't be THAT bad!




Well... at least to me, you've got it right for 8-10. Then it gets complicated because the 'grade' scale doesn't have enough letters. To me, it's more like:

7= C-
6= D
5= D-
4= F  
3= F-  
2= Ok... you're kidding, right?
1= Best advice to help your singing would be the application of duct-tape over your mouth

heheheh

 Not according to my perspective Seby.   Yet close.  10 is almost non-existent , Few that aren't superior vocalists would ever get that rank from me. If a person hands out 10's freely,  10 no longer means anything.  The 10 is, and should be reserved for "superior", It's an A+.


To me 8 and 9 are still in the A range.  Very good would be anything better than high average,  which is around a 6  :)  In the real world,  since pro's and amateurs are being ranked together here,  (or as they say in Montreal  "Side by each") the 8 is a rank most that are recreational singers should be DAMN proud of.

As I said,  I agree that SOME in the 10 category are EXCELLENT vocalists.  Yet I made a point to listen to at least 5 songs when possible, from each of these people. There might be one person that is actually a 9 after 5 songs IMHO. Yet that's it...

Have a person sing ten songs,  and the best they could realistically maintain would be a "9" rank singer.  and that is one AMAZINGLY skilled, and gifted singer !

I listened hard, and several times to some of Jazzy's songs.  "If" I were to rank, that would be the likely spread.  I'm thinking this out loud, and rank in my head

When I have graded, or ranked in the past,  I use a system such as the system I mentioned Seby.  Yet *MY* thoughts on how some of these excellent singers fare, are kept to myself only.  I'd NEVER affect a persons rank in real, if I don
t feel qualified to rank them.

The reality is I don't feel qualified to rank the singers of that calibre.  *I* can't help them.  Nor do I know what to listen for.  These people are perhaps much better musicians than myself.


The smartest folks know, what they don't know too

(saw this on a signature once:)   )

AO,   I think I'd rather get this than the good 'ol   C-

I made D's list in Highschool !





Well just "Y",  not "C" "S"  or "N",   Yet I can also do a great job on the Falsetto part of Harry Chapin's "Taxi", yet I can't sing the rest of the song.  I can sing "See me, Feel me",  Yet I can't sing the lower parts,  I can sing the chorus to Henry Gross
s song "Shannon".  I can sing the the falsetto parts to a few motown songs. Yet not the rest of the songs.


Maybe I should cut an album.  "bit's and pieces of your favorite meloncholy songs". I can have a disclaimer on the album:  


"May be harmful to pets or house plants. Long term affects studies are inconclusive among controlled groups of children, and pregnant women.  Do not use this product 1 hour before meals,  or for 2 hours following ingestion of meals.  This product has been known to intensify effects of oil of epigag, and bulemic response.  Counterindications to this product include irritable bowel syndrome, aggitation, situational tourettes syndrome. Tardive dyskenesia, distonia,  muscular rigidity, and in rare cases psychotic episodes in non-hearing impaired individuals"

Thanks for buying my CD,    Steve

Like Mr. Romano always says in Everybody Loves Raymond.....Holy Crap!!!  My brain hurts from reading this.  Very interesting tho.  There is much constructive potential here....and Crystal, you crack me up hun.  You are too cool!  However...my brain still hurts

_________________
Simon: Alright, so we're missing the echo! Robert, I can honestly say you're the worst singer I've ever heard in my life!"

Robert: Thank you!

From X Factor.

R-o-T-f-LMAo

'bits & pieces' heheheheh You crack me up.

I'm beginning to see first had what some of the fuss is about:

I just sent a not to the webguru, asking him to take steps to solve the problem with user jamesrjones, who goes into other people's (most of them paying members no doubt) songs and de-ranks them completely;  He leaves no comment, just pulls them down. And on one he did it on, he subbed the same song as another singer that day!

In addition to the manditory comment part of ranking, I think we singers should be able to FLAG a bad critique or rarnk (even have the permission to refuse one based on "sniper" or "attack" or "revenge" (or however you want to claim it)). Since there seems to be SUCH a problem with this type of behavior, then the original submitter SHOULD be able to see the ranking given to them by the person, and be able to question the user about the reasons why they gave them such a rank.

I mean, even the singers on Nashville Star or American Idol FACE their reviewers, and see flat out what they're saying... should WE be any less?

I completely agree Matt...

I think the 'anonymous ranking' should be abolished. If a person gives you a rank, you (not necessarily everyone else, just the submitter) should be able to see the ranks given.

In my experience here, the 'anonymous' aspect DOES NOT lend itself to more 'honest' ranking. I would never be ashamed for the submitter to see what I ranked them. I don't think it's a good idea for everyone ELSE to see the ranks though, because people tend to 'follow the herd'.

Good points Matt!

I had a freind email me about this yesterday.....he only put a few subs up....listen only and somehow got a ranking of 1.0!! how the heck was that mangaged? it's people like this who give ranking a bad name.

_________________