Karaoke Forums

Lol.. roo? NOTHING beats the GURGLE! Post the GURGLE!!!!


Lol, and the lady m was NOT that bad... i LOVED your energy in it..... we will ignore the pitch stuff:) the fact you DID it was tooo cool.



can you imagine ME singing it?!

If you screamed when you heard it.......I can't imagine what others would say!

And I think you would do good at Lady M! It is just a high energy song

Shotgun CC (because I think there are two Cindy's here):

Is it a Critique to state, "Meticulous performance" ? or just a compliment. I assume Critique to mean a carefull analysis. Many are just too polished for both my ear, and level of vocal knowledge/musicianship to find any flaws with. Therefore I'm not able to critique them.
I'm not sure of how formal the term Critique is, yet when I say "Damn that was amazing, Sounded perfect to me". that's a genuine compliment, and likely means that the person really is excellent, yet according to my understanding of a Critique, I have also conceded that I lack the sophistication to Critique them on their performance.

Lol, not only did i SCREAM, but, i made justy listen.. and HE screamed.. then, sky said, "what?!".. so, i let HER hear.. and she LOVED it:) I had to play it on loop, over and over....


And, i completely lack the energy that that song would require... i mean, i am TOO laid back and lazy. not gonna happen:) Lol, did you hear my AVRIL?! (plllease, that was not a begging invitation for compliments... it was HORRID)...

anyways, POST IT.... i mean, you ARE an amazing singer, it isn't as though it will make people think less of you. heck, talk about making yourself seem more human:)

POST IT!

Yes Steven, you're right there are 2 Cindy's in the conversation (Myself and Shotgun CC)

Don't you think that it's really ironic that a lot of the people that are still selecting "Critique/Rank" are not talkin in this thread to tell us what kind of critiques they are looking for?

But I think "critique" means something different to a lot of people. When I ask for "critique" I want your personal opinion. I'm not looking for a professional opinion - I want a personal opinion. Even if it's to say, "no - I don't think this song suits you at all - try something else".

I said this somewhere else before... prolly in a thread that's gone now... but when you look at professional singers -- if it weren't for the "critique" of the regular person on the street then they wouldn't make it big! Think about it --- we critique by either buying their music or not buying it. If our opinion is that they can sing and we like their music, then we'll probably buy their CD. If we don't like it we won't.

Just because we're not in their face saying "you were flat here" or "Eww -- off key there" doesn't mean we aren't critiquing them.

POST IT! POST IT! POST IT! POST IT!



snip snip

Thanks Steven! I'm going to cut & paste that quote and put it in the Just for Fun thread so people can use it on my subs!

Good points there Foxy Cindy! My favorite compliment is when people are going back for another listen.

Miss Milo


"Damn that was amazing, Sounded perfect to me". (TM) Patent Pending


FoxeRoxy, That is actually what people are entering, and I believe asking for, opinions. I'm not sure how many actually have the ability to Critique, or whether or not a Critique, or scrutinizing of a persons performance should be something publically displayed. I don't think a publically displayed Critique actually benefits the performer. A private Critique however might. Don't many amateur people see the term "Critique" and assume it to mean :find fault: ? Most likely people want to hear idea's from their friends. Opinions not grounded in a formal analysis. I'm starting to yack now...Time to shut myself up


"Don't you think that it's really ironic that a lot of the people that are still selecting "Critique/Rank" are not talkin in this thread to tell us what kind of critiques they are looking for?"


Do you think many from Singers Showcase actually read alot of these posts ? (I need to learn how to do that grey box quote stuff. Lin told me a few times, yet I'm too dense to figure it out )


Don't like my attitude? Send me an email @: www.like_I_care.com

(HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA)

CRITIQUE

analysis

Synonyms: annotation, appreciation, comment, consideration, criticism, description, discourse, exegesis, explanation, exposition, gloss, narration, notes, obiter dictum, observation, remark, review, treatise, voice-over

Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright © 2005 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

COMMENT

A statement of fact or opinion, especially a remark that expresses a personal reaction or attitude.


Synonyms: affirm, animadvert, annotate, assert, bring out, clarify, commentate, conclude, construe, criticize, disclose, elucidate, explain, explicate, expound, express, gloss, illustrate, interject, interpose, interpret, mention, note, observe, opine, pass on, point out, pronounce, reflect, remark, say, state, touch upon

Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright © 2005 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.


I guess in it's truest interpretation..... CRITIQUE means to analyze critically. However, given the above definitions... When one CRITQUES, they can include "comments" .... or statements of "appreciation".

So... given your concerns about your "expertise to critique" ... I guess if something is beyond your level of professional/personal ability to "analyze critically" .. then its fine to just include a "comment" such as the one you sited... in the COMMENTS box.

1. Its not NECESSARY to "criticize" ... in a critique. But, if ya feel the need, offer a constructive alternative.
2. Its ALWAYS okay to say something nice to someone.

As I said in a previous post... I often observe excellent sessions at work... and when this occurs... my CRITIQUE of the session includes COMMENTS that are very positive.

When I see things that can be done better... I say what it is... and give some suggestions on how to make it better.



OKay... now another THOUGHT PROVOKING question ......
~~~~~~

When ranking....

Are we using as the very highest rank the original artist's rendition... and then comparing the subber's version

~~~~~ OR ~~~~~

Are we ranking the overall Sub... as compared to other subs from all SS singers


Having a Frame of Reference (Level trying to be achieved) should be well defined, if a ranking is to be given..........Yes, No


Take Care All ~~

_________________
[shadow=tomato]If you want your significant other to pay attention to EVERY word you say::
  TALK IN YOUR SLEEP   [/shadow]  

When ranking....

Are we using as the very highest rank the original artist's rendition... and then comparing the subber's version

~~~~~ OR ~~~~~

Are we ranking the overall Sub... as compared to other subs from all SS singers


Having a Frame of Reference (Level trying to be achieved) should be well defined, if a ranking is to be given..........Yes, No

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Cindy
The only proper fair frames of reference for the individuals doing the Critique IMHO, are familiarity with the individual performers ability, an understanding of the style of music being performed, and a concept of what the performer is trying to do with the piece. Impersonating the composer/singer isn't the only way to perform a song of course.


I mentioned earlier that there's too vast a variance in the abilities of the SS performers, to consider comparing SS performers with one-another an apples to apples comparison. There are the less serious performers with average abilities, and those with semi-pro ability (or better)


What I'm hoping to learn in here, are some of the more technical aspects the person doing the critique should look for even in the non-technical performance. IE, Dynamics, Style, difficulty of piece, appropriate choice given performers ability/timber etc

I think this is just way over the top for what most are here for. If folks are looking for those kinds of critiques, they need to look for professionals, trained For Years to be able to give that kind of nurturing.

I'm just going to stick to what my ear hears. I've heard millions of pieces of music... performed by gazillions of singers (Work/KJ <--- ) ... So I'll just say ... "Excellent.... Good .... Average ... Needs Works" and leave appropriate comments, given what I hear.


I'm starting to feel like I've gotten caught in a cyclone... and it won't set me back down.....


CRITIQUING IS A SKILL... If you really wanna learn how to do it well..... find a course and learn how to do it. You aren't gonna learn the fine nuances... HERE.

~~ Otherwise... just listen and enjoy one another.

Anyone have a comb????

_________________
[shadow=tomato]If you want your significant other to pay attention to EVERY word you say::
  TALK IN YOUR SLEEP   [/shadow]  

Yeah... I've noticed that. It's a point I've made a few times... 'critique' mean to 'thoughtfully analyze', not 'tear apart if possible' heheh.

I for one, welcome either 'personal opinions' or 'technical critiques' or whatever. And public is fine with me. In fact, we've seen examples of how some folks make a big issue if they are contacted privately. It's been a quandry of mine several times, the person WANTS feedback, but do they want certain specifics posted publicly? Or not?

eesh... ah well. I think I'll just keep doing what I'm doing for now. I *try* to keep people's preferences in mind... but I'm not going to start keeping a huge list of who wants what type of critique, or not.. heheh. If a person puts their preference in the song description, that makes it simple, and if they don't.. for the most part I'll assume just the general rules apply.

Right.. and I've heard many a sub on here that actually outshines the original performance.

Of course, there is a sort of nebulous general standard most people probably think of when ranking a submission (probably something like 'would I hear something like this on the radio?') heh.... but truly, I think we each set our own 'bar', so while a person may not be improving much according to 'industry standards' (which aren't that high these days btw), they may be improving compared to their own older submissions. Of course, it's hard to judge that kind of thing unless a person has quite a few submissions posted (and/or) the listener has experienced quite a few of their subs.

Now, I would never rate a 'significantly flawed' singer a '10' simply because they had improved a lot compared to their other stuff... it would still have be 'perfect' (from my viewpoint), but I would certainly offer encouraging comments and congradulate them on their improvement.

As I've said before, when I give '10's - it may not be a 'technically perfect' performance, but it would be a performance that (given the genre, style of music, and technical aspects) could not be improved on without some truly deep dissection... and heck, let's remember 'Gestalt' theory (the whole being more than the sum of its parts).

This is getting complicated isn't it?

.. uh huh!! That's what I meant when I said:



There are just way too many nuances to this .. to come to any concensus of opinion.

Seby... you say you sorta think "would this be on the radio" ... which might be a good way to decide calibre....(even if the calibre has been lowered in the industry, its still whats making it, nowadays).

I think my biggest issue is... WHAT am I comparing the sub TO... I need a solid frame of reference... and unfortunately... I don't think we'll ever be able to define that.

Take Care... Cindy

_________________
[shadow=tomato]If you want your significant other to pay attention to EVERY word you say::
  TALK IN YOUR SLEEP   [/shadow]  

What station you be listenin' to, wa? I can't stand the top 40's stations...so, no way, could i use the "would this be on radio critique".... I do NOT understand most of the new music.. heck.. i don't understand most things;)


And, bythe way.. this conversation has become WAY too confusing for ye olde average person to take part in:)

To compare someones ability, to another performer even of the same calibre, would be a competition, not a critique. Critique, (or according to my Websters pocket dictionary) "Careful analysis" really isn't what we are doing here. It's just a fancy word in this forum for "opinions anybody"


When I mentioned much earlier on that critiquing is a skill, I was alluding to what Cindy mentioned. It takes an excellent ear, and alot of knowledge in the field in order to Critique. So in here, critique just means, "What do you guys think"

Couldn't agree more, Gilly!
Being to feel like Im "beating a dead horse" ....

Ewwwww that is a gross saying ...


TC......

_________________
[shadow=tomato]If you want your significant other to pay attention to EVERY word you say::
  TALK IN YOUR SLEEP   [/shadow]  

Gilly, Yep, I'll take the blame for the confusion. I was getting into the literal meaning of a critique. Which obviously isn't what members are doing in this venue I'm interested in aspects of critiquing, and learning what to listen for in the more professional type performance. Mostly because I don't think the "for fun" only group in here should be "critiqued" at all. Miss Milo, this was the confusion I was speaking of earlier. The stigma attached to the word critique, as well as a critique being a possible means of a camouflaged bashing in the wrong hands. It can of course be counterproductive. Anyway, yep... this is going around in circles at this point

You can't carefully analyze... without a standard for the comparison. An ambiguous/subjectvie scale .. as used here.... gives NO guidelines regarding the standards to be used.


Enough.

_________________
[shadow=tomato]If you want your significant other to pay attention to EVERY word you say::
  TALK IN YOUR SLEEP   [/shadow]  

Art gallery - New York - Goth chick - painting - What does this mean to you? Something like "it makes me cogniznant of the sum total of human suffering throughout all eternity sprialing into oblivion."

Critique postulates

1) Do you have to have musical background to have a right to express a gut level response or feeling about whether you like or dislike someones sub - NO
2) Do you have to justify your comments based on Music degrees, years of performance in the music industry, and be able to play Tocatta and Fugue in D Minor on a full pipe organ to post a negative comment - NO
3) If you have played music since 5 years old, been a vocal instructor, a guitar teacher, toured with a pro band, have degrees in music, can write symphonies, can truly play Liszt, or do sit down and play T&FDm just for fun every few weeks- if you have written and recorded dozens of albums and if some of your ex band people have now gone on to get Grammy's and if you can play flamenco guitar, and have ears like a bat and can hear ever nuance of sound in a recording - is it going to impress anyone or make them think you are qualified to make negative comment on their painfully flat singing - NO

Are there tone deaf singers? Yes.

So here is the point. And not every critique can sing themselves. Remember, you can have exceptional aural talents and be not gifted with the right vocal box to shine.

As an instructor and performer for decades I have learned a few basic truths in terms of music. One, there are really singers, right here who have a LOT of talent and with some pointers could and want to improve their voices to become professional singers.

There are also people who have reached whatever level of ability they are going to have and are neither receptive to anything but applause, go into Rotweiller mode if you rain on their parade.

I am still seeing subs on here where people are posting that singers "sound just like" some artist. Some do. But many don't. In fact, they aren't even in key. And we hear a lot of comments in private concerning a basic fear of people to post any criticism because then a group will come down on them.

So, you can be a critic whether you have any training or not. Unfortunately those of us who do have extensive college training in music, have performed for years, and have taught, know the true anguish of having a person who really sings something badly surrounded by a group of ardent supporters.

There is no way of stopping people from mass 10ing singers who do not rate 10s just to bring up their ratings to match their egos.

Sometimes I feel like I am going to a funeral with paid mourners.

And voices do go bad. I mean as people get older there are changes in their vocal chords sometimes when even they were a passable singer in younger days, they just cannot put it out there as they once did.

I try not to be offensive if I have a criticism. And I will tell you one thing is for sure. No one EVER got better by people telling them they sounded just like someone or were better than the original person who did the song. May gave them a little rush, but it isn't going to improve their singing.

Voice instructors (and I currently do not teach, just perform) have to deal with the fact, there are few really good talented people, and they have to make a living. They have to encourage some singers even if they are pretty bad. I have never done that. But I have had a few students go on to become famous. Does it matter. I mean really, is Suzy singer going to be any more thrilled to hear my criticism.

Probably some people have sat in or worked in sound studios for whoever, but I can pick up the scent of a true pro singer in 12 notes, and a great musician in less than that.

There are are a few here. As for the others. Welcome to fluffarama USA. Enjoy.

jeanvaljean

_________________
There are no accidents in a perfect world   - Blondie

JVJ, You brought up another interesting point that hasn't been touched on yet which is the "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours" element when leaving feedback, or "But wait, I gave you all 10's, how can you give me all 5's and one 7"