Me Put On Show

Discuss our reviews or just talk about any old album.

Me Put On Show

Postby stevehowe » Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:42 am

So, maybe I'm just crazy, but it seems the "Overall" scores that the 3 reviewers of "Me Put On Show" gave were a little high considering the socres for both the track list and the disc specifics (tuning, repeat listenablity etc.)

As you can see, only 5 out of 16 tracks actually had an average score of 4.0 or more, and only 2 out of 6 criteria scored at least a 4.0 or greater. Did anyone else notice this? And also, to the reviewers: why the high overall score for a disc that seemingly didn't "WOW" you all that much? Is this a case of a group's reputation or previous releases making up for shortcomings of the newest disc?

(note: I'm really not that obsessed with numbers on reviews, but I expected to see higher marks for a disc that is essentially "good" to "excellent".)
Stephen Howe
InPulse ('06-'08)
Almost Recess ('05-'06)
UW-Eau Claire Fifth Element ('01-'05)

"Something Witty..."
www.mnrealestateteam.com
www.MinnesotaFirstHome.com
stevehowe
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 6:31 pm
Location: St. Paul, MN

Postby milkpan » Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:29 pm

I initially thought the same thing, but it was the following line from the review that reduced some of my skepticism:

Joshua Diamant wrote:If my scores for Me Put On Show look inconsistent, they are. I reacted to this disc far differently as a whole than as the sum of its parts.

I'm still a little skeptical, but it's not inconceivable.

sidenote: that whole anagram thing is awesome.
milkpan
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 6:02 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Postby jsdiamant » Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:13 am

Milkpan hit the nail on the head. I can't speak for the other reviewers, but after listening to the album as a whole, my reaction was, "that was pretty darn good." it was only when I dug in and listened to tracks individually that I started to be less impressed. as I wrote, just about every track had at least one serious flaw. but there weren't any consistent flaws that applied to every song, so the positives, which were consistent and many, won out in the final analysis. make sense?

Joshua S. Diamant RARB '02-'05

jsdiamant
 
Posts: 431
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 8:26 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

agreeing

Postby tekay » Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:42 am

This here bit is probably going to piss off some people. but I'm apparently really good at doing that.

5="excellent" Excellent; not perfect, not best, not flawless...none of those superlatives that connote stricter levels of elitism.

To me, overall, it was an excellent album. Some songs kicked ass all around, some had better soloists than arrangments, some had better arrangements than soloists, VP out of this world, strong production. On the car stereo, I was enveloped, no engulfed, in a wall of sound that I wasn't expecting and was greatly pleased with.

I hated one song, was dissappointed in two more. My track scoring could have mirrored in terms of sectioning the CD.

To put it in other words, since many of you are collegians here...at UNC most As were on a 10pt scale before they instigated the +/-, so an A was 91-100. So if you got a test back as an A, but you know you made a 99, and your friend got back an A, but made a 92...when it comes right down to it, you both made As.

Same here with that 5. The sum doesn't have to equal up to the individual parts.

[color=#8040BF]http://www.rarb.org/people/thomas-king.html http://www.deltacappella.com CASA Dir. of Ambassador Program SoJam Producer & Concert Mgr Sing Producer CAL jd All Things A Cappella FOTS #1 ICCA Producer Emeritus "the

tekay
RARB
RARB
 
Posts: 358
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2002 8:34 pm
Location: Memphis, TN

Postby sdargie » Thu Oct 21, 2004 12:20 pm

That's a good point.
Do the current reviewers find themsleves thinking of the rating system more closely related to..

5 = 100%
4 = 99-75%
3 = 74 - 50%
2 = 49-25%
1 = 24-0%

or TeKay's example of...

5 = 100-80%
4 = 79-60%
3 = 59-40%
2 = 39-20%
1 = 19-0%

?
Sean Dargie
All About Buford
sdargie
RARB
RARB
 
Posts: 263
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 10:16 am
Location: Allston, MA

Postby tekay » Thu Oct 21, 2004 1:57 pm

sdargie wrote:That's a good point.

or TeKay's example of...

5 = 100-80%
4 = 79-60%
3 = 59-40%
2 = 39-20%
1 = 19-0%



speaking only for myself...I haven't broken the schematics down further than the example I gave you (nor had I quantified it before posting that message really).

but a slightly more realistic vision for me would be...

90ish-100 = 5
80-90ish=4
70-85=3
50-69=2
below would be 1

notice the overlap.

once i suggested a 0 rating, but never followed up on what that would "reallly" mean. I was just in a bad mood. :)

[color=#8040BF]http://www.rarb.org/people/thomas-king.html http://www.deltacappella.com CASA Dir. of Ambassador Program SoJam Producer & Concert Mgr Sing Producer CAL jd All Things A Cappella FOTS #1 ICCA Producer Emeritus "the

tekay
RARB
RARB
 
Posts: 358
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2002 8:34 pm
Location: Memphis, TN

Postby seth » Thu Oct 21, 2004 2:17 pm

It's not clear what those numbers are supposed to mean. Percentile? Grades on some hypothetical test, the curve of which we're supposed to relate to our experiences in school? In any case, though this doesn't answer your question, they're instructed to use something closer to your latter example. "Excellent" is meant to be a broad label, not a nearly unattainable one.

I can't say what reviewers intend to do, but here's what they actually do with the albums we've been sent over the past 6.5 years:

Code: Select all
score          count   %    %ile
5 - Excellent   412   26%   >84
4 - Good        534   34%  40-84
3 - Average     459   29%  11-40
2 - Weak        149   10%   1-11
1 - Poor         11    1%    <1


Those numbers span 1998-present, but looking at just the past two years gives pretty much the same results.

You wouldn't expect a uniform distribution, and the skew towards "Good" and away from "Weak" and "Poor" is not surprising. I attribute this to three factors:
  • Selection bias. People often refrain from sending us bad albums.
  • Reviewer generosity. People prefer to be nice. Really.
  • Awareness lag. Reviewers may have outdated notions of what's average.
seth
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 667
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 1:56 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Postby zbailey » Fri Oct 22, 2004 7:14 am

As a member of the group, I think that the reviews really gave us insight on to what we could work on. I think that one of the most important lessons we learned when we were recording/producing/mastering the cd is that it takes more time than people think. We really didnt start recording until late January and found ourselves really having to push physical limits to put out the cd for our Spring Concert in April. This said, I think this is why some people can find a flaw here and there in the tracks. But like most people, I think the album overall is pretty hot. My one question has to do with Clocks and Joshua Diamant's comment on the wrong chord. I was just wondering what chord that was. Im not disagreeing or complaining about anything, I am just wondering for the sake of knowing. I arranged the song and its always helpful to get constructive criticism when possible, especially from people who probably have more experience in a cappella than me.
zbailey
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 5:54 pm

Postby jsdiamant » Fri Oct 22, 2004 10:01 am

hey Zack, what are the tenor and baritone notes on the doo-ah-doo-ah chords in the verses? I wanna make sure I'm hearing it correctly before I make suggestions.

Joshua S. Diamant RARB '02-'05

jsdiamant
 
Posts: 431
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 8:26 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Postby zbailey » Fri Oct 22, 2004 10:22 am

the tenor 1's are singing d sharps all the way
the tenor 2's are singing b flat, b flat, b flat, f
the baritones are singing g, g sharp g sharp/ g g sharp g sharp


if that is too vague, i can always email you the midi of the arrangement.
zbailey
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 5:54 pm

Postby jpchip » Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:09 pm

Wow, I don't think I've ever heard a diminished third sound good....
John "Johns" Sullivan

Testostertones 1999-2003
Buffalo Chips 2003-2008
UVA Acappellate Opinions 2008-2009
NYU Substantial Performance 2009-Present
jpchip
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 1:15 pm
Location: New York, NY

Postby sdargie » Fri Oct 22, 2004 1:20 pm

Looks like a first inversion Eb chord with some sus4s thrown in. Enharmonics would turn that diminished third into the equally pleasing, more recognizable major second. What is the bass doing?
Sean Dargie
All About Buford
sdargie
RARB
RARB
 
Posts: 263
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 10:16 am
Location: Allston, MA

Postby zbailey » Fri Oct 22, 2004 1:31 pm

the basses have running 8th notes in the progression of: Eb, Bb, Bb, F



If there are any more inquiries, I have posted the midi to the arrangement at
filebox.vt.edu/users/zbailey

also..... if you have musicwrite, i also threw the actual arrangement up there as well.


Zack
zbailey
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 5:54 pm

Postby zbailey » Fri Oct 22, 2004 1:37 pm

i also threw up the mp3 of the song from Me Put On Show
zbailey
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 5:54 pm

Postby zachwalker » Fri Oct 22, 2004 2:02 pm

hokiezb wrote:i also threw up the mp3 of the song from Me Put On Show


Hey now...why all the throwing up?

I see you like oatmeal.
zachwalker
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 4:33 pm
Location: New York, NY

Next

Return to zzCommunity Reviews

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron