Karaoke Forums

I won't take part in a ranking system.  It's been suggested over and over again, that people should have the capability of asking for help and listeners suggestions without getting thrown into a competition, and judged.  I couldn't agree more.

Sure there are some tens...  There are a few here that are better IMHO than some of the pro's out there.  They are a different category of musician.  I listen to them with a very critical ear, and I'm sure they don't wish to be compared with most of the people here with lesser ability.

There's something here that bothers me.  Many seem to want to insist:

"- here,  not musicians"

Well,  that's wrong.  It's both.

We are ranking and critiquing ability of musicianship, and there is a reason actual competitions break down competitors into categories. Yet here, there's a tacit deliniation, "barring fluff" of course.  We have expectations of people we know before we even click on their music tracks. The bar of our standards of what's acceptable raises and lowers.  It has to, otherwise this wouldn't be fun..It would be cruel.  

The few times I've heard "10's",  I've just stated it in the comment box.  Noone minds being told that you thought their work was impeccable.

I suppose the compromise here is to keep as many happy as possible. To look for accuracy in such a nebulous "ranking" platform is futile.  Whether it's 1-5 stars, or 1-10 rank (with the traditional Ebay feedback type +++++++++++) It's the persons feelings that are taken into consideration the most during ranking here. Since most would be 4-6's in an ideal ranking system.  The current "C" category appears as a playground where big kids can play, and collect stars.  Nothing more.

YVW buddy!!! I knew you wouldn't want to miss out...


For my next sub...

"I'm A B|tch"

(well ok, i promised Crystal I'd do one for her first so I guess it will have to wait)

Gracie,  I wasn't referring to one particular comment.

I just think that many do forget that there are musicians here. Some professional.

Yet regardless,  a performance in here is "musical". It's aspects of musicianship that ideally are subjected to the rank, and critique.

I'd think this would be obvious, yet it doesn't appear to be.

Blah Blah Blah......

I'm no professional critic.....don't profess to be....when I rank a song it is because I like or dislike it and to what degree....and average is just that average....equal to or similare to the majority....perfect is just that perfect without blemish....

as for the songs being tried and true...no doubt....but two different singers singing the same song can be a totally different sound....I can't sing rock ....I sound like doo doo....but I think I can cut a pretty good honky tonkin' number....on the other hand the reverse maybe said for the next guy going down the street....

so if I say it's a 6 to me...then it's average not better not worse than the most....if I say it's a 10, then ya know it's made me dance.....finally if I give a 1 ya know that I will be seeing my audiologist in the near future to help with my bleeding ears...

I'm just gonna say I loved it or hated it based on my tastes and not from some great wealth of musical knowledge.....remember the person we see in the mirror is not necessarily the person the rest of the world sees...inturn it maybe said that the person we hear is not the person the rest of the world hears either...so ya might hear a 10 and the rest of us hear a 7....that's llife....

_________________




[glow=blue]Tequila & A Song
KKid[/glow]

BTW.... just to demonstrate that I wasn't being paranoid...

(Brett has proven that he is indeed trying to be an honest, if sometimes unwillling, critiquer, so this excludes him... and we have no idea what he ranked on that song)

However, my current ranking on the song... 7.5
Current ranking on the same song by a different person... 8



I encourage you all to go listen for yourselves and see if this is truly reflective of the quality of these submissions. I couldn't have asked for a better demonstration of the bias in the ratings.

Now understand, I have absolutely nothing against the person who posted the second version and I'm not trying to have her dragged through the mud. I think she's pretty cool (and she would probably agree with me about all of this). Also, I want to clarify that I'm not fuming and spitting over *my* ranking here, but I want to use the current situation to demonstrate, once and for all, that 'fluffing', 'sniping' and 'revenge/support ranking' DOES exist here, and it's no more 'ok' than a person winning a karaoke contest simply because they brought the most friends with them to applaude.

I'm not out to 'win' anything and I don't anticipate ever being on the 'best ranked singers' list, but when you do have some awesome singers on this site and some of the people on the 'best ranked' list are 'average' at best.... it doesn't reflect very well on the site.

Just out of curiosity, KKid...

How many 10's & 1's have you given out on here? Not asking you to name names of course, but what's the lowest rank you have ever given?

I've given as low as a 3 before (although that was changed)... I've given several 5's (and those subs needed a LOT of work, to say the least).

Time for me to stick my oar in!!! HEHE



I want to say that I actively encourage you to do that too... I don't say that to crete rivalry, but because then you can each, individually, decide what you think in response to the way songs are being ranked.  




Without saying WHAT I ranked, I have to actively admit, that I ranked them both lower than those scores, in FACT, I ranked one of them with a 5, for average performance, and in seeing the average rank, it is proof *TO ME*, that people are ranking ridiculously... Neither performance, (No offense to either of you), was worthy of a 10...  And yet for the average ranks to be at 7.5 and 8, respectively... People HAVE ranked those subs with 9's and 10's... Thats simply not on...  

Call me mean, call me whatever you want, I am taking more than my fair share of hassle for standing up and allowing myself to be counted... I'll state my point again... If people choose to be ranked/critiqued... BE HONEST...!
Who care if its your friend, who cares about "fluffing them up"... If they want fluff, let them sub in the other categories, its THAT simple!

Otherwise, WHAT IS THE POINT!  If I sub a song for critique and rank, I don't want to be told that it is better than the others, if it isn't!  Ladies... If you get a new dress, and your man tells you that it looks great, but he is just making you feel good, and then you go out to a party, and look terrible compared to all the other women with honest boyfriends, wouldn't you feel terribly embarrased???

YES - This is a karaoke site, but SOME people use it for other purposes, and the majority of those people use the critique category for something constructive... YOU people who give out fluffy comments and ranks are doing that to them... You are giving them the confidence in their version of a song, to take it out and perform it, or put it on a demo, or do as they will, and ultimately causing them hurt and embarrassment when they get told that the song is rubbish!



Seby - May I ask why the 3 was changed?  I've given low ranks, especially 5's and 6's, and I have no problem admitting it... Burn me if you want to try fluffers, but I'm sorry... If nobody is going to rank honestly, and USE the numbers below 8... Then WHY isn't there only the option to give 8, 9 or 10... USE YOUR HEADS!!!

The option to give 1 - 7 is there because it is required sometimes... Thats the environment we are in...  I'm all for making people feel good, and boosting confidence... I've worked with children for the last few years... But fluffing them is NOT the answer...

I will name no names, but I am aware that I am personally taking alot of criticism for my views, but I am afraid they aren't going to change.  I will continue to rank and comment honestly, and that is the way I am.

I have recieved comments via other peoples subs, (very not cool - say it to my face and don't use other peoples subs to do it), I have seen conversation in the chat room (which I'm very cool with - I don't have a problem with my point being discussed, even if its derogatory towards me - in fact I encourage discussion about it), and I've even had accusations thrown at me about various things (not just you jvj... we're cool about that now)...  I'm simply pointing out that I am taking alot of remarks about my views, and thats fair enough, but I simply don't understand...

If somebody would like to actually stand up and be counted, and point out the ADVANTAGES of ranking an average submission with a rank of 9 or 10... I am very eager and interested to hear it...

Music is based on personal taste, and therefore, largely based on opinion.
In essence that means that it will ALWAYS be surrounded by controversy, and anybody, be they a karaoke singer, in a semi-pro group, or even on the professional circuit, should be prepared for that.  Ranking 10 for an average sub (clearly shown on the rankings to be a 5), is not good preparation for that.

Karaoke IS fun... Thats what it is all about, but I personally still wouldn't like to be one of the people at a karaoke bar that people wince at... Not if I can be better than that...!  I don't see why anybody would - fun or not... I don't find it fun to be winced at or laughed at.

So - controversy - debate - call it what you want... This isn't a flame, its not a fight... I'm simply asking somebody from the "opposition" to fairly debate the advantages of "fluff" and "unfair ranking"...

Thanks for listening to my ramble, and thanks in advance to anybody willing to meet my challenge...

Much love,

Brett xx

I haven given a 1 a time or two...but only when the sub really makes your ears bleed.....I mean if I can't stand the sound...dah.....but hey maybe someone else really likes it....doesn't make either person wrong...just displays our differences...I've used all the numbers....and why would you go back in and change a rank you've given....if it's what you believed it to be...how did it change?....

there are singers who's subs are consistantly good....and there are those who are consistantly 1s.....



I agree if we give 10s and 9s to anything less than perfect...some even down right terrible.....it makes the site look stupid...listen to these subs....how can we give 10s to everyone.....and it's been said over and over if ya don't want to get low ranks...don't ask to be ranked....

_________________




[glow=blue]Tequila & A Song
KKid[/glow]

[quote=Rainbowgnu]

I want to say that I actively encourage you to do that too... I don't say that to crete rivalry, but because then you can each, individually, decide what you think in response to the way songs are being ranked.[/quote]

*nodding*  :yes:   



No, they weren't. I certainly won't argue that. In fact, it's my opinion that you (Brett) are usually generous (from what I've seen of your comments/critiques). But heck, I'm generous too sometimes... although not much!!!



I probably haven't seen what you're talking about (unless you're talking about this thread and I doubt that), but hey... I TOLD you so!! I should know!



Sing it brother!!



Amen!! And can we hear a Hallelujah!!!???



Sure... The sub had problems, but they really weren't as bad as I first thought because I realized that I just really didn't like the way the song sounded since it was being done in a style I didn't like. After forcing myself to remove the emotional response I got from the style, I realized it actually wasn't that bad. Still not great, mind you... but not that bad technically.



Good for you!!! Like I said, I still think you're being a bit generous in some cases, but at least you're really trying to be honest.



Yes, that happened to me just recently as well, which prompted me to write the person a private email letting them know that if they were going to engage in that type of behaviour, they'de better be prepared for some personal interaction... but I think that has ironed itself out now for the most part...



Hope you're not talking about me teasing you in the chat room about what happened... that was just 'ribbing' and blowing off tension. I figured you could handle it and nothing 'nasty' was said (or meant)... if it wasn't me... well, i'm surprised someone started in on you about it. Ah the things I miss the few minutes a day I'm away from SS...



heheheh



Well, you're preaching to the choir over here... so I'm afraid I can't help you out on that.

Answered that in my post just before this one.. if you can wade through it.

Basically, I realized I was being unfair because the style grated on me, so I changed the rank.

Well hun, I was doing good. I was. I found a country song, worked hard on it, and got one of the best tracks I have done in some time. All nice comments, pretty much, and blam. I know you were cheering when we finished the mix, but well then your post tripped the great rater in the sky.

Now I knew doing Clint Black would be a gamble. But for something totally not my genre for years, except a little nose stuffiness (our little niece and her constant colds) I just couldn't help submit it.

I could have taken the safe route of the JFF crowd. I even had my Andy Griffith grin picture up, but alas.

So, I'm back to my dark Goth pic and despite all enjoyed doing the Clint Black song no one had ever heard of. Maybe next time I'll do Patsy Cline's Crazy.  I can you know. It will definitely lift a few eyebrows.

_________________
There are no accidents in a perfect world   - Blondie

You'd be "Crazy" not to do it.....by the way did you know that the song "Crazy" was orignally entitled "Nuts"......don't think it would have become the clasic it is with that name.....

_________________




[glow=blue]Tequila & A Song
KKid[/glow]

*has now read thru entire 4 pages of posts....interesting topic*

I go nee naw now

Nite nite all

_________________
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.

[font=georgia]Don't want to get too deep into this right now b/c my brain hurts quite frankly . I just wanted to address this quote by rainbowgnu.  I think that what is happening in some of these cases, is that some of these people may not REALLY think that the song is a 10 or even a 9.  Instead using the number they give to reflect what the song deserves, they are using their number to influence the overall score.  If they see that someone has given a 6 and they think that is too low, they will give it a 10 even if they don't think it deserves that, just to be able to raise it up higher.  In effect they are nullifying what the previous person gave by "beefing" up the score they give.  I think if this is happening.. and I BELIEVE it is, that this is not cool and an unfair practice.  IF we are going to do this rating thing, people need to start with the basics, and using a score that reflects what they think the song deserves, not to make the overall score higher to match what they want it to.  I'm sure this happens the other way too. Where people see a song that has a 10, and they don't think it should have a 10, so they rate it a point lower than they were going to give it, so that it will average out to be what they want.  I think these are shifty practices, and are a misuse of the ratings as well.  I can't PROVE that this happens of course, but I'm pretty SURE it does... Just my thoughts on that little matter....[/font]

_________________
[scroll][/scroll]

[font=andalus]We Are the Music Makers, and We are the Dreamers of Dreams...
We are the Movers and Shakers of the World Forever it Seems...[/font]

VERY VERY good point Elisha - I'm pretty sure it does too...!

I think thats really unfair and ddefeats the whole point of rating in the first place...  Everyone just HAS to be honest for themselves, which is the whole point of the system...!

Much love,

Brett

Syberchick wrote:I encourage you all to go listen for yourselves and see if this is truly reflective of the quality of these submissions. I couldn't have asked for a better demonstration of the bias in the ratings.

Now understand, I have absolutely nothing against the person who posted the second version and I'm not trying to have her dragged through the mud. I think she's pretty cool (and she would probably agree with me about all of this). Also, I want to clarify that I'm not fuming and spitting over *my* ranking here, but I want to use the current situation to demonstrate, once and for all, that 'fluffing', 'sniping' and 'revenge/support ranking' DOES exist here, and it's no more 'ok' than a person winning a karaoke contest simply because they brought the most friends with them to applaude.

I'm not out to 'win' anything and I don't anticipate ever being on the 'best ranked singers' list, but when you do have some awesome singers on this site and some of the people on the 'best ranked' list are 'average' at best.... it doesn't reflect very well on the site.


and errrr i missed the song complicated done by someone else....soooo what ya mean biased ranking ? i never heard it let alone ranked it.. it was me and brett and a couple of others that knocked u down on that song syberchick...listened to your i'm a (@$%&#!)...want my opinion on that? well it was a lot more stronger performance and had i decided to rank and critique ya i would have given you an 8....syber sorry...what i said about complicated still stands no matter how you argue your point...no offence intended to you, but how on earth can you compare yourself with another singer?? is everyone not unique in their own way? as i pointed out before what may seem good to 1 person is not good to anothers ears...its that simple...and your remarks about that other persons version of complicated if i was them i would feel like you! had just started a competition as to who subbed the best version. Is that really necessary? anyways just ma views.

It was my comment that started or was the basis of this thread. At one point, people were changng their nice ratings, when someone rated their songs poorly. That hole in the system has been plugged. Currently we have average singers on the top music list, with no way to ever remove them because they have blocked ratings on their songs, left a few 10 posts, and cheated, and continue to cheat to hold the top ranks on the board.  

Ratings with no songs posted. Fluff that tests the limits of my Zantac on protected JFF subs. I would like a chance to rate those who have locked their ratings and refuse to put up songs for critique and yet hold on to beyond believable 10 average.

Consistency in ratings. Forget it. Cliques form, rating cliques, and the fluff factory continues. I must comment the female sniping is far worse than the male singer sniping. Females are far more competive in here.

Phil, one last time, I implore you. Remove the people from the rating system who have no songs to rate. Remove people from the top 10 who have cheated to remain there. Give those of us a chance who open our songs to rating, despite an occasonal snipe, and I will stand my ground saying there are still snipers, to have some chance of becoming the #1 singer on the list. Is that unreasonable?

You have created JFF for that purpose. How many times must the truth be repeated before it is acknowledged and something done to fix the flaws in the system which have been taken advantage of to cheat?

A rating by essence creates competition. This is reality.

_________________
There are no accidents in a perfect world   - Blondie

i actually agree with you about the freezing of their ratings jean this is done...but that could be the work they are most pleased with themselves....me personally when i sub a song for critique the rankings and the list does not come into the scenario i am genuinely just looking for feedback because this is work i want to get right for my own reasons...not to be top of some list...i aint competative in some ways i wish i was i may have progressed futher over the years

i say...phil GIVE US THE OTHER OPTION CRITIQUE WITHOUT RANKINGS, and yes perhaps clear the list there are a couple of users on that top ranked list that have not been active on this site for quite a while.