Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    I was not mad at Len for being honest.  I agreed with all the nasty
    things he said about me.  I used the word "villification" in the
    title as a joke.  I have explained time and time again that my
    submissions are stupid because I don't want to lose copyright through
    accidental publication of my pieces, and mostly just want to show
    off some program I wrote.
    
    Meanwhile, I am busy making the first-ever hi-fi recordings of all
    my GOOD pieces.  But don't expect to hear them on COMMUSIC tapes.
    Maybe on TOMMUSIC tapes.
    
    Tom

    I think that a reviewer is not obliged to listen to or to review
    ANYTHING!  If he does review a piece, he has an obligation to be honest
    and truthful.  As a Commusic submitter, I would rather have a
    searingly brutal review in the notes file than to send a demo off to 
    somebody or do a public performance and *then* get a searingly brutal 
    review.    
    
    IMO - len has certainly gone beyond the call of duty.
    
    Steve

    As a recipient of several TOMMUSIC tapes, I'll vouch for Tom; he's
    got a lot of *much* more interesting stuff available.  But you have
    to be nice to him (like I am) in order to get a copy.
    
    Isn't villification what happens to your intestines when the Yuppie
    bacteria move in?
    
    len.
    

    	I got interested in COMMUSIC because I wanted to gain as much
    knowledge about MIDI and computer music as quickly as I could. 
    One of the most fascinating aspects of this for me, was COMMUSIC
    III, the reviews for which I read BEFORE I listened to the tape.
    Frankly, I was shocked when I actually heard the music itself after
    reading many of the comments.  In almost every case, I felt the
    pieces deserved better than the comments they got.  There just did
    not seem to be enough emphasis on CONSTRUCTIVE criticism.
    
    	So I would agree with the noter in .1 .  I realize that many
    of you folks know each other intimately, and can write scathing
    diatribes against each other in the spirit of "fun and debate".
    Periodically (like after hearing COMMUSIC III) I get pumped up to 
    submit something, just to see what people might think and how I might
    make it better next time.  But then I see some of the stuff flying
    back and forth and think, "Nah, better just to read and learn what I
    can; I get enough abuse from customers".  
           
    Very timid,
    Bill Allen

    Certainly we're pushing beyond the limits of the smiley face here.
    
    I'm disappointed when I read a really vicious review and then 
    I'm told the reviewer and reviewee don't mean anything they appear
    to say/play. If that's the case, praise is probably just as meaningless
    -- is everything in the review ironic? Should the review be prefaced
    by  "I know this guy, and WE know what I mean"?
    
    Richard.

    Well, now I *love* praise and it is also important.  A review needs
    first to be HONEST.  Then, the praise and the criticism have weight.
    I feel that if reviewers get too concerned with hurting the feelings
    of the submitters, this can get in the way of an honest review.

    Also, if somebody submits for the first time on a Commusic tape,
    or if the piece isn't as good as they want they can indicate so in the 
    notes.  Reviewers can take this into account and still give it a fair 
    review.  However, DON'T APOLOGIZE!  Too many apologies and nobody
    will be able to give it a fair review.  Also, there is seldom need to
    explain a piece before somebody hears it.  Let the music speak for
    itself.  These guidelines are basically the same as for when you
    submit a demo to a record company.  Difference is that the reviewers
    here tend to respond more quickly, more reliably and with more detail
    than record companies.  (Don't ask me how I know ... it's a long,
    boring, embarassing but educational story ...)
    
    PLEASE don't be intimidated by the apparent high quality of someone
    else's previous stuff!  Part of the interest of fellow reviewers
    is that they are genuinely intersted in hearing what peers are doing,
    what their equipment sounds like and how they put what they say
    in notes into practice.  
    
    An honest review will judge each piece on its own merits.  This
    isn't a contest - there ain't no prize, except peer review and maybe
    - just maybe - some respect for being a fellow submitter. 
    Look at Tom Janzen.  I haven't liked most of the stuff he has submitted,
    but his submissions have earned my respect and I have a better
    understanding of where he's coming from when he posts notes.  Or,
    John Williams who was trying out his rig on the last tape.  There's
    no problem with that.  I admit being grossly intimidated by the
    quality of some of the works on the tapes, but by reading the
    criticisms/compliments of others I've come to an understanding of
    the direction I can aim my stuff at.  
    
    One last dig, after you hear your own piece X number of times, it's
    going to sound bad to you.  That's normal.  You get tired of hearing
    your own stuff after a while.  Even Barry Manilow, Madonna and
    Michael Jackson ... no, wait ... well, anyway you know what I mean.
    ;^}
    
    An honest review can only help your music improve, IMO.
    
    Steve

	RE .0

	I'd hate to think that things I have said have caused an uproar in
this conference - especially since this conference as a whole has benefited
me in so many ways.  Therefore, I just want to publicly apologize for any of
my comments in regards to Len's initial review that may have caused hard 
feelings.  I never intended to sound demanding, but rather my initial intent
was to try and clear up some possible misconceptions regarding the motivations
of my 'religious' COMMUSIC V submission.  I, as I'm sure evryone does, hate to 
be misunderstood.

	Len, please accept my apology for what appears to have blown into 
something neither of us wanted or planned.

	Dan

    
    I don't know whether I should apologize or what...
    
    -----
    
    I had (still have) no intent to cast Len as a "heavy" in terms of
    reviewing.  My intent is understanding; what does he have to say
    about the art versus the medium versus the media...
    
    	More specifically, let's categorize:
                        
    		The organization (theme, rhythm, melody);
    		The musical notes (MIDI note-on's, if you will);
    		The dynamics (velocity, bends, tempo);   
    		The patches;
    		The effects;
    		The mix;
    		                                       
    I know that Len didn't like BtEH; some of the commentary are clearly
    directed at the organization, the notes, and the patches.  
    
    So, I wanted to run an experiment; I would let organization and
    scoring be done by an acknowledged master (W. A. Mozart), and tend
    to the last four, attempting to master them at least. 
    
    I still intend to do this; I've sequenced the first movement of WAM's
    Eine Kleine Nachtmusik and (with any luck) it _will_ appear on the
    next COMMUSIC tape.  The patching, effecting, and mix will be mine;
    all else will be WAM's.  If I can get this right then I feel I can
    move onward (upward) in terms of quality composition and organization.
    If not, then I'll just read more books, listen to more "masters",
    and keep trying.
    
    I would appreciate it if people would continue to listen critically
    to all submissions;  this includes Len.  Even if the reviews are
    depressing, they _are_ listened to.            
                                                               

    The first rule I would use in reviewing is to be honest.  You can be
    honest and abrasive or you can be honest and constructive. As an
    example, you can say "That piano patch you used stinks.  It sounds like
    it's being played underwater" or you can say "I didn't like the piano
    patch you used.  Next time you might try for one which is more
    realistic."  The meaning is the same, it's just the tone which is
    different.
    
    I personally have a hard time reviewing styles of music I don't
    care for.  Thus rather than reviewing such a piece and saying it's
    lousy, I might choose not to review it.  That's my right and the
    right of anyone else who chooses to write a review.
    
    I submitted some stuff for COMMUSIC I. Some of my material was
    trashed and some other people liked it.  You can't please everyone,
    but I read every review and accepted the criticism I wanted to accept
    and rejected the criticism I didn't want to accept.  That's my right
    as a submittor.  I learned a lot from people's reviews.
    
    Let's face it: when you put your music out to be scrutinized by
    someone other than yourself, you're taking a risk that someone won't
    like it, they'll tell you and they might hurt your feelings.  If
    you can't accept that risk, don't submit.  But by the same token,
    reviewers should understand that feelings are involved and act
    accordingly.  Be honest, but try not to be rude.  
    
    By the way, I don't recall any of the recent reviews as falling
    into the rude category.  I think for the most part that the folks
    who participate in this conference are an articulate, intelligent
    and well-mannered bunch, which is more than I can say for some
    conference I've read :-)
    
    Derek_who_hasn't_had_time_to_write_a_review_yet_but_will_probably_keep_
         threatening_to_write_one_anyway

    This has become interesting. I suppose that my feelings are that music
    is not necessarily related to the particular moment, but to a concept,
    and place that suggested it (hows that for vague). When I listened
    to any of the COMMUSIC submissions, I find that I really liked all
    of them (maybe there were mix problems, or overdriven something
    or other), but in general I try to think about what people are trying
    to project, and what context that they are best associated with.
    I guess, I prefer to play what I feel is right for me. I like the
    concept of sharing musical experiances, and try to let people know
    a bit more about what I personally consider good, or right. However,
    After reading some of the reviews (not anyones in particular), there
    seems to be a lot of nit-picking over things that may or may not
    be constructive criticisum. I've Had my work played on the radio
    here in Colorado Springs (At a local commerical station, during
    prime time in the day), so I'm not concerned that many people will
    hear it & react negatively (I'm way to mainstream commercial to shock
    anyone too much). Anyway, I had some stuff put together that I thought
    was very good & I plan to put together a tape & move it my self (ala
    Karl Moeller style). I did this once before & has some success. What
    can I say, I just was surprized when I read some of the reviews of the
    tapes. While I agreed with some, and thought that others must be inside
    humor, I missed the point on some of the arguments. Besides, Who out
    there really knows the appropriate tune, and vocalizations of my
    favorite 'chicken' patch (that's supposed to be be a joke)?

						    Jens
    

    It seems to me that some people here completely misunderstand the
    role of criticism.  I am particularly disturbed by words like "abuse",
    "scathing diatribes", and "vicious" (all of which appeared in replies
    to this note), and phrases like "don't mean anything they appear
    to play/say".
    
    First, I challenge anyone to find anything I said in my review that
    is "vicious", "scathing" or "abusive".  Over and over again, I said,
    "I don't like this", not "this stinks".  I justified my opinions,
    and where I felt I was just "feeling" something and had no rational
    basis for my position, I said so.  In no case did I not say exactly
    what I meant.
    
    Dan, you're utterly innocent in this regard.  You wanted my opinion,
    was disappointed that all I said was, "I can't respond to this",
    and asked for me to try.  So I did.  I don't hold you in any way
    responsible for the misinterpretation of my opinions that several
    commentators (who seem to have neither submitted or reviewed - some
    people seem to think that writing an honest review is effortless
    - I listened to that tape at least 10 times (that's 15 hours, as much
    time as I often spend putting a performance together), and spent
    additional time thinking about my reactions and writing the review).
    And my "reward" has basically been to be told "if you can't say
    anything nice, don't say anything".
    
    I do not presume to read people's minds or second guess their
    intentions.  I have no basis for assertions like "you put a lot
    of effort into this".  And even if I did, so what.  I don't care
    how much effort somebody put into something.  The purpose of criticism
    is not to reward effort, but to characterize results.  If I don't
    like something, or if I feel somebody failed to achieve their stated
    intent, I'm not going to dance around the issue and try to say
    something else that avoids be critical.  But where I had to be honestly
    negative, I believe I did so in a non ad hominem way, and I often
    suggested changes.  (Sorry, I couldn't think of anyway to "change" BtEH
    except by redoing the whole thing.)
    
    Again, this is the last time I will bother to review a COMMUSIC
    tape.  COMMUSIC noters looking for uncritical praise will have to
    go elsewhere for their ego fixes.
   
    len (who's getting a little fed up).
    
    

    When I submit I expect some good reviews and bad reviews but I look
    forward to all reviews. I want to read reviews...back when we did
    the first tape I got what I considered a particularly bad review
    from accross the pond, to the extent that my guitar playing was
    un-inspired and derivative (not an exact quote), in all honesty that
    really hurt me. However, in the long run that feedback was good
    to an extent (the extent that I was willing to accept it) and I
    used that to help prepare what I felt were better produced submissions
    for the next tape(s). I am not big on production, I am a preformer
    that also composes. My material is in scratch-pad form when it shows
    up on the tapes. Useful feedback has helped me after every single
    submission.
    
    When I review a tape I do several things. First I listen to it.
    I do admit and have admitted all along that I review based on my
    personal taste. People can figure out where I am by what I submit
    and what I say in my reviews...I take notes on each submission.
    I try to be tactful and complimentary where possible and I do not
    hold back when I feel that something is lacking...If I have to be
    'nice' (ie: not critical) then I'll stop reviewing also.
    
    dbII

    
    C'mon Len, don't let the critics of your criticism get you down.
    
    FWIW, I think that there's nothing wrong with an honest review,
    which is what Len gave. A review is just one person's opinion and
    there's no need to get upset or feel personally attacked if they
    disagree with you or don't happen to like your submission. I much
    prefer honest opinions to gratuitous back-slapping or tip-toeing
    around making sure you don't say anything negative. If you can give
    constructive criticism, then great, that's helpful. But if you just
    plain don't like something, then I don't see what's wrong with saying
    so.
    
    Rob (who_used_to_like_the_really_vicious_reviews_in_Cream)
    
    

    re .16 (by the way, who are you?  dds_sec and s-s^1 mean nothing
    to me):
    
    Again, I don't know what to make of this.  How can calling something
    an "utter fast forward *for me*" be construed as vicious, abusive
    or scathing?  It means *exactly* what it says - when *I* hear this
    piece, *my* immediate reaction is to go for the fast forward button.
    *I* don't want to listen to it, for all the reasons I subsequently
    spelled out.  It's certainly not constructive; perhaps I should
    have said, "I suggest you change this piece so it no longer makes
    me wish to fast forward past it"?  That strikes me as a little
    arrogant, asserting that people should write music that I like.
    But it no more disparages the music or the submitter than any other
    clever (or not so clever) variation on the thought "I don't care for
    this" does.
    
    Could you point specifically to the remarks I made so "frequently"
    that expressed "hateful" emotions?
    
    And it's not necessary to cover your tail.  Mine seems to be out
    there in the breeze just now.
    
    And nobody's "focussed" on you.  The examples I cited came from
    many notes, not just yours.
    
    I note with some bemusement that not one of the folks I have so
    "viciously savaged" seems to feel beaten up.  It's only a couple of
    bystanders (again, who have neither submitted nor reviewed at length)
    who are saying "ain't it awful".
    
    Hoping that this issue will just go away is not helpful.  Those
    of you criticizing my review owe me the same sort of "constructive"
    comments that you are demanding I provide.
    
    len.
    

    
    I'm sticking up for you, Len!                               
    
    
    _I_ find your "scathing reviews" useful; either it's something I can
    (and should and _will_) fix, or it's something that I _want_ that way
    and/or can't change (can't change the patch on a Rickey! :-) ). 
    
            
    Don't let these sidewalk supervisors get you down.
    
    	-Bill
    

Let me get this straight...

1. our tape producer has resigned?
2. our top technical guy is being persecuted?
3. everyone is taking sides and apologizing like crazy?

These notes conferences certainly do get out of hand. Everyone in COMMUSIC
that I have had the pleasure of meeting is a very decent person whom I
respect and consider a friend. I think we should be extra careful not to
be overly sensitive, since the written word cannot convey all of the
subtle nuances intended. It is very easy to misunderstand or be misunderstood
in this format. The COMMUSIC tape is fun. The liner notes were even more fun.
If the public reviews will cause hard feelings, let's not do them. I value
everyone's opinion in this notes file. I have never submitted anything because
I have been doing covers for 12 years. My musical tastes right now are so
weird that I don't feel qualified to review anyone elses work. The most
interesting thing right now for me is the technical aspects of arranging,
production, equipment used, recording tips, etc. We're all artists of one
kind or another, sharing our art and knowledge. We also seem to tend to be very
temperamental and sensitive. How about keeping those grains of salt handy?

dave

    >< Note 1613.20 by SUBSYS::ORIN "AMIGA te amo" >
>                              -< salt shortage? >->
>
>. My musical tastes right now are so
>weird that I don't feel qualified to review anyone elses work.
>dave

    Would review one of my tapes if I sent it to you?
    8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)
    Tom

    Sigh...
    
    It is with great reluctance that I enter this fray.  I *KNOW* I am
    going to be misunderstood... it's in the nature of what I have to say.
    
    I'm going to itemize my thoughts.  Why?  Because I'm convinced I'm
    going to have refer back to them in response to the flames I get
    and having them itemized by number will make it much easier and
    quicker with less room for confusion:
    
    	1) Of all the noters I read in *ANY* conference, I find Len's
    	   submissions to be by far the most interesting, informative,
    	   literate, articulate, etc. around.  This is the honest truth.
    
    	2) I know with great certainty that it was never in Len's mind
    	   to "slam" (or whatever he has been falsely accused of) anyone.
    
    	3) I don't really think Len did anything "wrong".
    
    	4) This is not a perfect world.  In a perfect world Len could
           say the kind of things he said and no one would construe it
    	   the wrong way.
    
    	5) (3) notwithstanding, Len, you brought this on yourself
    	   with using words like "drivel" and "crap" to describe properties
    	   of submissions.
    
    	   Your claim that no absolute qualitative assesment were made
    	   seems hard to reconcile with the use of a word like "drivel".
    	   Yes, I am quoting that out of context (not that I think that
    	   it would change things if I did give the context), but my
    	   experience in notes tells me that people INEVITABLY take
    	   words like that and elevate them out of their intended context.
    
    	   In a perfect perfect world there should be no reason for you
    	   to avoid using such a word.
    
    	6) It is my opinion, that better words could have been chosen
    	   by someone articulate as Len without compromising the
    	   constructivity of the review.
    
        7) Regarding whether or not the "villified" have felt attacked.
    	   I'm not totally convinced they would be honest with you
    	   if they DID feel that way.  I know for certain that the
           choice of words probably caused the reviews to have more
    	   of an impact than was necessary.
    
    	8) I rated a "fast forward" on Commusic III and didn't feel
    	   in the slightest way insulted.   In fact, I agreed with EVERY
    	   negative comment that was made by anyone.  Many of the points
    	   raised I was aware of anyway, and those I wasn't aware of were
    	   useful constructive criticism.
    
    	9) For whatever it's worth, my untempered review of the Commusic V tape
           would be almost IDENTICAL to Len's (except I wouldn't have
    	   "overlooked" Steve Sherman's piece the first time though).
    
    	10) Len is no different than the rest of us.  I readily confess to using
    	    words like "drivel" and "crap" to discuss things verbally
    	    with friends.   If anyone says they never do stuff like
    	    that, I wouldn't be likely to believe them.  
    
    	    I would not use such words here where the submittor could read it.
    
    	    You could call that cowardice, talking behind people's backs,
    	    etc. and I wouldn't argue with you.   However, I still think
    	    I'm doing the right thing.
    
    	11) I am EXTREMELY dissapointed that Len is not planning to review
    	   future submissions.  Like it or not Len, you are *NOT* "just
    	   another" Commusic reviewer.  You are undeniably a distinguished
    	   reviewer in view of your knowledge of music, equipment, your
    	   authorship of the "Drums for non-drummers" text.
    
    	   And I personally was looking forward to having you review my
    	   stuff.  You can use any words you like to review my stuff.
    	   I frequently use words like "drivel" and "crap" to describe
    	   my own stuff.   Perhaps you'd still consider "review by request
    	   via mail"?
    
        12) Tooting my own horn here: As evidence that I don't mind
    	    criticism, I remind folks that when Commusic IV came out
    	    I *asked* for opinions about the audio quality.  Brad Schafer
    	    made a strong protest about the audio quality.  Lots of
    	    people jumped on him for it.  *I* came to his defense and
    	    said he was giving me exactly what I had asked for - an
    	    honest opinion.
    
    	    Brad and I exchange mail (and ESQ-1 patches) regulary.
    	    There was never ever even the slightest tinge of bad feelings
    	    among us.   I even ran the longest path inside the ZK maze
    	    to meet him for a few minutes when he was in town last.
    
    	13) I am giving my "honest" opinion here.  My hope is that you
    	   appreciate what that means.  You're allowed to disagree.
    	   You (Len) are not allowed to get pissed at me IN THE SLIGHTEST.
           (Think how inconsistent you'd look after all this talk about
    	   seeking honest opinions.)  In fact, you may even have to
    	   allow me to by you a beer at the next LERDS-BIM I attend.
    
        14) This item intentionally left blank (I'm superstitious about
    	    the number 13.  ;-)
    
    So, all this blab and what am I really saying?
    
    I'm saying that all this is nonsense, and that I would just recommend
    temperizing a bit when writing negative reviews.
    
    Actually I think the net result of this is that it will be easier to
    write negative reviews in the future.  Before the issue came out in the
    open, it was sorta unclear what the "rules" were.
    
    In fact, I know feel able to write a review of mine (something I
    feel fortunate that no one ever noticed).
    
    Anybody hate me?
    
    	db

    re .20
    
    Amen.
    
    Bill Allen         
    
    (DTN 442-2157, @MPO)

    There is only ONE "L" in 'vilified'.

Shake hands, have a beer, and let's get on with the show.

re .21 Tom, thanx again for bringing over the COMMUSIC V tape and a tape
of your material. I know you were joking about my reviewing your tape, but
I will say that it is different. For me, right now, that means very good.
I am so burned out on cover tunes that I can't even stand to listen to the
radio. I am buying tapes and CDs of people I know nothing about, just to
try out new things. I'm searching for a "musical anchorage" so that I can
try to create some original music. I don't know if anyone wants to hear
some of the strange sounds that are coming out of my D50 and S550. Maybe
a planetarium will be interested; or how about the sound track for
"Star Trek V - In Search of the Lost Chord"?

A side note - thanks again to whomever pointed me to the GRP Live Album for
Dave Grusen's St. Elsewhere Theme. That drummer Carlos Vega is really hot.
Have you heard him Len? If you want to learn how to make a drum machine
cook, pick up something with CV on the drums and listen closely! The
production quality is incredible. Edd - The drummer on the LA Law Theme is
Willie Ornelas, another fantastic beater.


dave

    I agree with any negative comments made by anyone about any
    commusic i-iv submission at any time.
    Tom

    re: .26  what if the commen was 'not too bad'?
    
    Richard.

I don't want to drag this too much further, but I had this thought...

If I'm not mistaken, this topic is basically (the way I see it):

a response to the submitter's responses to the reviews of the submissions.

Now if we just kept to the usual format of submission followed by review,
none of this would have evolved.

You don't see film producers buying television time to respond to their
reviews.

I would have liked to see anything after the original reviews done through
mail, except for maybe... what happened to the "Technical Discussion" notes?

/Mitch

    Well, I want it understood that I'm not pissed at anyone about
    anything.  In retrospect (ah, hindsight), I regret using words like
    "drivel" (which my dictionary says is a verb) and "crap" (although
    Bill used it first to describe his own material; check it out).
    However, I don't see why I can't use such words to represent my
    opinion.  Just because I say "this is x" doesn't make it "x";
    I am not the sole holder of truth, and anything I say is of course
    no more than my opinion. 
    
    I've thought a lot lately (wonder what triggered that?) about what
    my responsibilities as a reviewer are.  As succinctly as I can put
    it (so we can get back to the important stuff like talking about
    equipment), they are:
    
    	1) be honest.
    
    	2) don't make ad hominem attacks.  Review the material, not
    	   the submitter.
    
    	3) to the extent possible, explain your opinions.  If you can't,
    	   say so.
                           
    	4) be sensitive to people's fragile egos.  Choose your words
    	   carefully.  Try to avoid words with obvious pejorative
    	   implications.
                  
    	5) align your expectations with the submitter's experience and
    	   resources.  I expect a lot more from 5 guys with a ton of
    	   equipment and a recording contract than I do from one guy
    	   with an acoustic guitar and a stereo tape deck.
                        
    len.