[Bruce N]

I'm just curious about how other people will critique a song, when looking at the production levels of the song, and on what they hear, do you base it on the very first time you hear the song, or do you base it on hearing the track a number of times, before you critique ?

For myself, I'll usually base it on the first impression of the song, as I feel that is the most honest impression, the slate is clean, there's no expectations, it's based on what sticks out the most as you hear the song play, whereas if I listen to the track a number times, I find that the things that stuck out on the first listen have a way being less prominent, and you become more accepting of them, or they're not as noticeable, and then you feel some of the things you first heard are now of insignificance to be mentioned.

A case in point, on an recent song I critiqued, on my first listen there were IMO, some deficiencies in the dynamics of the sound, and I noted them in my critique, on subsequent listening, they then seemed to be not as prominent, and I guess because I'm now used to song, and expect to hear that, and then I look at the critique I gave, and start to think maybe I was bit harsh in my judgement.

So I'm curious as to what others thoughts or feelings might be, in the way they approach a song to critique.

Bruce

[Neal K]

I take a different approach when critiquing lyrics than I do when critiquing songs. For the later I also base it on my first impressions of the song, often within the first 15 - 20 seconds. If it's not grabbing my attention before 25 seconds is up, it usually doesn't grab me at all (with some exceptions, of course). I always listen to the song all the way through, but it's amazing how much those first 15 - 20 seconds affect me.

When I listen once and immediatley like the song, I usually hear more things I like the next few times I listen to it. But if I don't like it the song right off the bat, I usually hear more things I don't like the next few times I listen. I guess that's human nature - but it goes to show the power of first impressions. I guess that is the opposite of Bruce's experience. Perhaps he's a more enlightened human being than I

Neal

[Bruce N]

Well I wouldn't say all that enlightened, I only know what I like, or what I think makes for a good song, as I'm sure everybody else has their own ideas of what makes for a good song, I know from my own experience you sometimes have to step away from the mix for awhile, or you become immune to it, and maybe start hearing less of the over all mix.

I don't mind at all if someone points out somethings that I should look at and consider, it's good to a have an second or third set of ears to hopefully notice something that might need adjusting.

And you're probably right about how much the first 30 seconds of the song is going to dictate on how much you may like the song to begin with, and decide on how much interest you find in the song, before being critical of it.

[azurething]

Hey, Bruce..

For me, critiquing a song can be pretty intricate... in that since it's presented as a "song".. it's assumed that the writer is hoping it is as close to a "finished" piece as possible.. this is when precision instruments can come out of the toolbag and some examination can be done on an almost scientific musical scale... (which by the way is NOT my favorite type of critique to provide, but sometimes it's what people are specifically looking for). It's rather in depth in that all of the elements of the entire piece are offered for evaluation and consideration, and to be fair, they each deserve attention..

Alternatively, critiquing a lyric alone doesn't carry the same burden. A lyric alone may be in any stage of development, and as such, will have different needs. Nuts and bolts are no good to a piece when it's missing a chassis.. The enjoyment for me, I think is seeing these different stages evolve.. and recognizing the creative processes that have formed them.. The challenge, of course, is commenting in such a way that I hope does not offend, when a person may feel their lyric should be accepted as done, or nearly done, and my experience has been of reading a piece that is in an early development stage.

Of course, my only goal here is to assist in the process by providing as honest and objective an evaluation of each piece as possible.. but I've come to notice that some people are more sensitive about critique than others. There may even be one or two that I will refuse to critique for that reason. My thinking is that if they aren't ready, or willing, to hear an honest appraisal from an objective person, perhaps they aught not post it.. and I begin to avoid them. On the other hand.. some are very abrasive and critical about every piece they critique. Perhaps that's the problem. Perhaps they feel that a critique must be a severe sensure, rather than an honest appraisal and balanced review. Those persons I also have begun to recognize and ignore..

Sorry if I strayed from the intended question.. tired I guess.. and the topic got away with me.. lol In brief to the original, first impressions of a completed song will definitely tell me one thing... how long the process will take.. if I lose interest early in the song, the critique will take much longer.. because then I have to analyze and explain how and why that happened.. If the song keeps me listening, but offers a few questions semantically.. it's much easier.. and so on.. I always have to listen more than once to critique it fairly. Initially to get the mood, and the developmental stage that I feel the song has reached... and again (and sometimes again, and again) to specifically identify the bits and pieces that have taken me to that conclusion.

Cool question/ point for discussion... Thanks for the post..

And good to seeya..

Cheers,

~azurething~

[Corinne]

I seldom go into great detail when critiquing a song - If the production is really well done - I'll mention that - If it's just purely a vocal and instrument, I'll focus more on the song itself. If the singer can't really sing all that well, I won't mention that at all. If they can't play or sing too well, then I'll focus on the lyrics...I try to tailor each critique according to the level of the writer/performer.

I will listen for an engaging melody - That's important to me - If it's not so interesting, perhaps the lyrics are really well done. Or the vibe of the production pulls me - Different aspects of the song will attract me. I can't say that it's one thing that will cause me to critique at all. - It's the overall impression of the song.

With the lyrics - I will zoom in on the weak spots that I think can be improved. And I will always - always try to offer encouragement as well as point out the things that need tweaking

[Alistair S]

I probably do all of the above

Sometimes I will listen to a song but have no time (or inclination) to critique and decide to coma back later. Often I have to think about what to comment on. I have a first impression, but I need to organise my thoughts. Then, when I come back, I listen again (and may comment on both my first impression and the views I came to on re-listening).

I try and focus first on the song, rather than the production. However, if there is a song that I think is good but that has something that I can contribute in terms of the recording or arrangement that I think will make it sound even better, I may comment on that. I often don't feel qualified to provide much detail, but if I have a view I may express it.

My critiques also depend on the intent of the writer. Someone who is presenting something that they want to pitch may get comments that are considerably more "nit-picking" on details than someone who doesn't have that ambition. This is because they have set the bar that much higher.

BY preference, I am probably more likely to critique something I like and/or that is written by someone who values critiques than something I don't like (or would take too much time to analyse what I don't like) and is written by someone who isn't open to honest feedback.

[whatsoname]

Well first impressions are important to the audience. And the the intial thing I listen for is the general feel of the song in terms of rhythm, tone/sound, and form. I won't get accustomed to the general feel. If I'm not intially liking it and it will one of two things: (1) Get worse and I have to turn the music off, or (2) I may get into the feel, understand it and possibly like it. Kind of like meeting someone you don't like straight off but after a while you realise he or she's actually okay.

Listening to music holistically like this will show up things that initially sound odd to the ear and upon relistening you become accustomed to it. I think it's difficult to satisfy everybodies ears though because we all perceive things differently. The most obvious example of this is taste, like chilli. Some people like it hot, some not so and still others don't like chilli at all. The way I judge if something is actually odd and not necessarily my own perception is to ask whether or not it fits in with the general feel of the song being created. If it fits in then maybe it's just me.

Lastly I will rarely ever critique a song lyric based on listening alone simply because it can be difficult to hear the words. I hear one thing when the lyric is actually saying another. In fact when it's like this I'm inclined to not even bother tuning in to the lyric. The song might as well be an instrumental.

[OskaSeason]

I may add to this post later, but for now, I thought that it would be interesting to find out the actual meaning of critique.
Of course I am not saying any are true, just food for thought.


Roy


A few definitions:

----------------------------------------
French, from Greek

From French critique < New Latin critica (“critique”), prop. fem. of criticus (“critical”); see critic. But this Latin word comes from the Greek: Krinô, first meaning: to separate, put asunder, distinguish, this all in order to be able (second or third meaning) to judge something fairly.

"to review or discuss critically" since the 18th century, but lately this usage has gained much wider currency, in part because the verb criticize, once neutral between praise and censure, is now mainly used in a negative sense.
-------------------------------------------------------
CRITIC, n. A person who boasts himself hard to please because nobody tries to please him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I love this one below:
There is a land of pure delight, Beyond the Jordan's flood, Where saints, apparelled all in white, Fling back the critic's mud.
And as he legs it through the skies, His pelt a sable hue, He sorrows sore to recognize The missiles that he threw. Orrin Goof
-------------------------------------------------------
1. One skilled in judging of the merits of literary or artistic works; a connoisseur; an adept; hence, one who examines literary or artistic works, etc., and passes judgment upon them; a reviewer. [1913 Webster]
2. One who passes a rigorous or captious judgment; one who censures or finds fault; a harsh examiner or judge; a caviler; a carper. [1913 Webster]
--------------------------------------

[daddio]

I agree that the first 25 seconnds or so of a song are crucial. If it doesn't grab me then, it probably won't.
I don't read lyrics when I'm listening to a song for critique, at least not the first time through.

On a side note, I think a lot of listeners, myself included, are swayed as much by arrangement and production as they are by the actual song itself. I've read posts where critiquers say that's not true but their own comments are proof; "I love the vocal", "the guitar sound was very nice", "Your drum sound was a little off", etc. Comments like these are common and reflective of the production, not the song itself. I've never sat down and tallied them up but I bet the overwhelming number of comments are more about production, arrangement, or performance than about the actual song itself.

[stewart alexande...]

If I like it.. I browse through first.. then read properly..
or listen.. etc :>


but it is all based on personal thought

[OskaSeason]

critiquing, arr the power.

When I look through the posts to select which to check out, I normally go for those with none or few 'Last Action'
I figure that those with 10 or more critiques have already had much of what needs to be said, said already. I am probally wrong on this.

If I do check out some with high visiters, I do find it difficult trying to rememeber whats been said. Don't want to repeat something.

I also find that if loads of 'critiques' have already sugested the same thing and I totally disagree with it, I have to think long and hard.
Is it a good thing to buck the trend and in effect say I'm the only one in step. even though I may be wrong.

Again when a few say one thing and the poster agrees, I am not sure wether to then say, now hold on a minute, I can think of something better.
IMO. again I could be wrong.

Sometimes I add some comments and after a while think that I could have been two harsh or wrong, so I will go back and remove the comments.
Funnily enough after doing this on two occations the poster came back with a pm saying that they read it (in a few secs) and agreed with what I said.
and aking me to re-post the comments.

Sometimes I see comments from others and think, 'that is such a great comment' on inmproving the song. And the poster just dosnt bother and when I hear the song later, I think No No No. But then again it is the posters baby so to speak.

When someone tells me something about my songs, if I think they are right, I tell them so, and then one day, will remember to change it and
sometimes I change it there and then. I look upon it as a gift.


Difficult decisions quite a lot of the time.

just my 2 cents

Roy