Subject: Critique of critiques

Here's a comment I left on a song (that I'll leave anonymous) after the artist requested a critique.

What I'd like to invite is a "critique of this critique."

Leave aside whether the observations made were or were not "correct." What I'd like to know is whether this critique contains the kind of feedback that you would find useful as an artist. If not, what kind of feedback would you like to see?

For extra credit, post in this forum a critique you have received on a song that you found exceptionally useful and tell us why.

yer full o it! :-)

Well, it certainly beats "Great tune, I dig it"...

Seriously though, it is clear that you've taken a great deal of time to absorb the song and really pick out the pros and cons. I think this level of feedback would be very helpful to me personally.

But again... one of the hardest things dealing with voting and feedback is that not everyone here is "in it for the same reason". There are so many varied expectation levels here that some people might find this kind of review super helpful, some might find it nitpicking, some might find it encouraging, and some might find it offensive. Kinda depends on what the artist wants to accomplish by posting here.

I liked it and would love to hear what you have to say in this level of detail on some of our tracks.

Mason

PS - I'm not sure what song you're referring to, but by your review it really sounds like the vocals could use stand to have some compression to help even out the levels.

Without needing to hear the song it sounds like a thoughtful and insightful critique. I like how you touch on the melodic themes using the "journey" metaphors. It's an important aspect that most people don't tend to address so kudos!

The tone is very positive without pumping sunshine and you point out areas for improvement and offer suggestions as to how to achieve it.

I'm thinking I might ask you to review my next one!

Let's get realistic. Who's got the kind of time and willingness to write a 7 paragraph critique on every song ( or even a third) of the songs they hear on here?

Bug67 makes a great point, but I would find that detailed of a critique to be given at invitation only. I would LOVE to have someone break down one of my songs like that. I like to hear that people like my songs, but I like to hear what I'm doing right/wrong even more. Chikoppi, I think that critique is exactly what those of us who want more criticism are looking for.

That being said, it may be a bit much for both you and the artist if unsolicited. Some people have thin skin and it could mess with their minds to have that laid down on them. It would also be a hefty project to undertake for yourself for EVERY song you listen to. I think this critique is PERFECT for the solicited variety.

Brian, I would be honored by such a detailed listen by you, and I would be very grateful for this kind of feedback on my music.

Reading what you wrote makes me regret I haven't left comments on your music, which might have led to receiving this type of helpful information from you. Whether I agreed with all you would say or not, I would still find such detail very useful.

-Patrick

You're too kind Patrick! But I'm not looking for accolades. I'm no expert. I'm a rank amateur in production and a hack on the guitar. I'm not even a very good musician (and I know you are!).

I'd like to get a conversation started about peer critiques for a couple of reasons.

1) Many at MacJams ask for constructive feedback on their songs
2) Anyone with a set of ears and a few minutes to spare can contribute valuable feedback
3) I think the "art" of critical listening can be learned

I'll encourage everyone to add to the discussion by listing the kind of critical feedback they want on their songs or by posting here a critique they have received that they found particularly useful.

Critique of critiques:

I think the critique flowed very nicely, from your general impression of the tune immediately, to the facets that grabbed you, including what you considered rough spots, being incongruous or detracting from your impression of the intended theme. You then moved into technical suggestions to enhance the mix. I like how you laid them out as suggestions rather than "true-isms." You followed by giving respect attending to parts of the actual mix. This gives the artist a sense of accomplishment on the technical end. And you finish with a very nice general comment on the lyrics and praise on the overall piece.

All in all I think it was an excellent critique! I look forward to hearing more!

Doug

This is good, useful feedback - I'd love to get info like that. I rarely do.



But what does "a deep setting with a low ratio" mean?

Nicely done, Brian.

What escapes many people is a point you make in your response to Patrick... "The 'art' of critical listening can be learned."

Equally important is the benefit that skill can provide for an individual's OWN work. Critical listening --- and commenting --- on others' works will, indeed, help you overcome the hurdle of subjectivity we each face when producing our own compositions. It is a discipline that helps one focus on the musical --- rather than the emotional --- connection we have with our work. ;)


--- Joe

I think this is a critique from a "Critic's Circle", where the person wanting a critique submits a request via an MJ note to the critic of their choosing, so it's going to be in much more detail than a comment on a song would be.

For that, this one is a great example of the work of a very organized thinker, someone that is really trying to listen critically. I think it would be fairly helpful. Having volunteered for the Critics Circle myself, I've gotten a few submissions for critiquing, and it occurred to me that I wasn't sure of my approach. I wonder if I'm being helpful because it's not clear what sort of input the artist is looking for from me. Maybe people submitting songs don't really know what they want exactly so that's okay. Given the disorganized nature of my thought process, I end up being fairly impressionistic in my suggestions. I'm trying to draw from my experience in the past in recording studios and making suggestions like I would if I was on the other side of the glass, or sitting at the mixing board with the artist. Some of the better engineers that I've worked with made sort of indirect suggestions that I would have to digest and figure out my own solutions. So my indirect method may be helpful to some, while others may be looking for more concrete technical suggestions. The most helpful advice I've gotten from an engineer in the past was "Don't suck." and you don't get more direct than that! LOL

I do think the art of critical listening can be learned. It starts by just noting the patterns in the music, the different sections and instruments, the verse/chorus structure or refrain of it, that type of thing. It's just listening to what's there and describing it. Once you give it a name you can figure out how it's organized and start to figure out if the way it's put together works to the artist's goal.

The range of volume a compressor acts upon is called the "Threshold." The Threshold is measured as a distance from peak volume from -1dB (shallow, acting on only the extreme end of the volume curve) to about -40dB (deep, acting on even the most quiet portions of the track).

The Ratio is how much the compressor "flattens" the volume curve within the defined Threshold. A Ratio of 2:1 (average) squishes the Threshold into half the original space. A Ratio of 3:1 (strong) squishes the threshold into one-third the original space.

A "deep setting with a low ratio" means that the Threshold should be deep enough to capture the quiet sounds on the track and the Ratio should be strong enough to make the quiet parts noticeably louder, but not so strong that the dynamics get squeezed out.

Thanks. I think I got it. I've been using input gain to try to "reach down" into quiet portions to let the compressor pull it out. The issue with that I guess is that loud portions could overload the input. Adjusting the threshold is the better way (I assume). Or is it more complicated than that?

Sorry for going so far off-topic. Curiosity killed the cat... and all.

that's great. occasionally i'll get feedback like that and either use it or disregard it (sometimes the listener will not be exactly on the same page as myself). i would appreciate this kind of feedback though.

there was one time that someone wrote "this song sucks" in the comments for one of my songs. actually thought it was kind of funny and cool in a punk rock way,, but it would drive me nuts had the guy started stalking me.

nice critique, and you did the tried and true "start out with something positive" approach.

Maybe there is a problem with asking for critiques without a request for specific areas to be addressed.

For example, from my personal state of song writing

If on one of my songs I got feedback saying "you don't have a verse/chorus/bridge" arrangement --- I might say "yes, that's entirely on purpose. the point was to show how there were two states: before and after" or whatever.

But if the feedback said something in detail about mastering (insert a meaningful example comment here: I don't know enough about mastering to even make one up) --- I would likely not even understand the terminology. A round of question/answer would need to ensue, assuming I even felt I was ready for that discussion.

Of course different people will have different areas of strengths and weaknesses. So how do we match up the critique with something useful for the person given their stage of development? You don't want the reviewer to waste time on stuff the songwriter isn't ready for, or doesn't care about -- nor do you want to waste the songwriter's time on feedback they won't use.

I don't wish to come across as a naysayer here. Just pointing out that songs are multidimensional and the writer is too - and the reviewer is too. They need to matched up somewhat for this process to be anything near efficient.

That is what I am pointing out as well. When you ask someone for a critique, it might be helpful if you say what aspect you would the critique to focus on. That is unless you just want the song in general critiqued. I think by choosing who you want to critique your song, you probably are familiar with the general oeuvre of the MJ critic you've chosen and know what to expect in general. But if you are thinking about submitting a song for critique because you are wondering where the song stands in some respect, if you make it clear what that is, then you are more likely to get the answer to the question in your head.

On the other hand, you may get more of a pat response, and leaving it up to the reviewer might lead to more unexpected areas and be a bit more creative. It's a process and it will be interesting to see what develops.