Karaoke Forums

RATINGS - I agree with your comments that the ratings do not represent the true quality of the songs submitted. I think that part of the problem is similar to EBAY FEEDBACKS. Those who leave feedbacks are those who are members and have submitted at least 1 song. Thus, subconsciously, they fear being poorly rated!

As a vocal adjudicator, I judge performers based on the following:

1) Clarity of diction and tonal accuracy
2) Stage Presence
3) Interpretation

Since we can only "hear" a submitted song, it is impossible to judge STAGE PRESENCE. However, it is possible to rank (1) Clarity of Diction (2) Tonal accuracy and (3) Interpretation. Perhaps we can even add (4) General Presentation.

As an adjudicator, I give each singer 100 points on each category and then take note of errors or number of mistakes. Here is how I would rank them:

a) Clarity of Diction - 100 points to begin, then 5 points deduction for words slurred or incomprehensible
b) Tonal Accuracy - 100 points to begin, then 5 point deduction for inaccurate notes sung
c) Interpretation - 100 points to begin, then 5 point deduction for incidence of poor interpretation (example: inappropriate loud passage, inability to sustain a note when called for, lack of breath support, etc.)

The OVERALL rating would be the total points in each category (less mistakes) divided by the number of categories. Anything from 91% to 100% would be perfect (10); 81% - 90% would be excellent (9); 71% - 80%, outstanding (8); 61% - 70%, great (7); 51% - 60% would be very well (6); less than 50% would then be challenging (5). I would probably skip ranking anything below 5 but would simply add my comment.

Thus, the ranking would become more accurate. However, as an adjudicator, my responsibility is not simply to "judge" or "criticize" but rather to positively identify areas that a singer may want to address to become a better singer. When presenting the "ranking" of the singer, I would first identify what he/she did well, and then identify the "errors that caused a less than 100% performance."

My two cents worth!

Great system, aqua...basically the same as what I use. A person can only lose so much for being consistantly off-key thru-out the whole song but can also keep a good score for doing everything else right. This is the way it should be. I also like to judge on timing, the emotion projected by the singer & the sound production of the submitted track since the way a song is put together has such a large impact in this kind of enviroment.

Enjoy the site!

That's a lot of good information on rating (ranking). I struggle to find a way to be less subjective and find a fair way to give a rank. This will help.

That's a really good start...

I would like additional feedback.

Remember though the scale is 1 - 10 (not 100%)

I realize it is difficult to come up with a system that will work for everyone, however, let's see what we can create.

I appreciate everyone's & anyone's comments or ideas.

Phill

I think it is mostly a popularity contest and I am not in the "in crowd" I know there are all sorts of genre's and styles and I too rate on execution but I also rate on originality and ownership of a particular song although I do have my favorites on this site. Also for the younger people being a mom I have a hard time rating those subs for the most part I just pass them up but I do take into consideration the fact that their equipment may not be the state-of-the-art tools SOME on this site have access to and listen purely to the vocal ability.

The combination of Panthers and AQUAs ranking system would be a good one. Lately I dont rank anymore. I will just listen and put comments just so that the person submiting the song know the there are people listening to the songs they submit.

_________________
I can neither confirm nor deny ever having or knowing anything about nothing.... mrscott

If you can't/won't or feel you shouldn't rank - then just leave a 'Hello - thanks for the sub'.

Looks like we're getting behind on leaving rank/comments (I know I am). Maybe because of all the submissions (is it always this busy - very cool).

But maybe it's also because giving fair and honest ranking can be difficult. I say just leave a comment, and rank later if/when you can.

Gracie,
I wish to reply, I personally found out that it's not the "State of the art tools".. the $10,000.00 microphones, or any of that, that gets the best sound in this forum. As a matter of fact it's totally the opposite. I have had the BEST results that I could get without uploading my professional songs. With 2 small programs "cakewalk guitar pro 3" and Also Sony's "Sound Forge 7.0" and a Audix Dynamic microphone (om-5).
a very simple set up indeed. Amazing how simple it is to run. And to think how I personally over engineered so many tracks, and how I made myself look when they fell apart uploading them.

When one good take on a simple program and a simple file conversion would do.

Now it's as simple as it gets.. song is done in 10 mins.

Who needs a studio anymore I do it from my notebook and a USB audio interface. I can record anywhere now.

_________________
Brian D.
(BHB)

Thank you for all your positive remarks about my comments.

Phil, your comment are well taken. Using the % basis and starting out with 100% on every category with a, say, 3% deduction per incidence of error, provides the singer a greater latitude. If the listener felt that the singer had 3 errors (9%) throughout the song for a 91% total, the rank could still be a 10 (91-100 = 10). It would take 4 errors (12%) to bring the ranking down to a 9 (81-90 = 9).

This encourages the singer a lot! It means that an outstanding performance could be one that has 0 error to 3 errors. The person ranking must have a most acute or perfect pitch perceptive ability to discern and be an excellent adjudicator to accurately pinpoint the errors - with an ability to offer a suggestion for improvement. This is only fair then.

For a performance to be "less than desirable or admirable" it should be quite apparent even to the average listener.

May I suggest that EVERYONE SHOULD "encourage" the singer and not "discourage". In other words, when we encounter a really horrible presentation, we should still "encourage" the singer to maybe, "take lessons, or pursue a more pleasurable hobby." (Keep the WILLIAM HUNG example in mind; it is was so bad that it did him a lot of good -HE IS MAKING MONEY entertaining through his horrible style. Who is to argue that? He has the last laugh on Mr. Crowell).