Improving Critique

[john]

Hi Gang

 

I’ve been looking at how Critique is conducted, and how it could be better. I’ve been looking at quite a few angles:

 

1. How useful it is to WRITERS
2. How useful it is to REVIEWERS
3. EXPECTATION
4. What PROBLEMS members encounter
5. How much FRICTION can be involved (and why)
6. How our critique section appears to GUESTS and NOOBS
7. How it reflects on the site (is it attractive to POTENTIAL MEMBERS)
8. How much it has an effect on MEMBER RETENTION (because it surely does)

 

My purpose here is to make suggestions to our members regarding critique, and to try to outline that we deal with a large number of combinations of perspectives and skills. Critique needs to happen in as neutral and comfortable an environment as possible. It can be VERY uncomfortable for the uninitiated.

 

This should be a much more pleasurable experience for all concerned.

 

1 & 2. As it stands I think it is useful, but is largely dependent on MINDSET and EXPECTATION.

 

3. Members tend to be either detailed and blunt/to the point, or they are more forgiving and less direct.

 

Members with work being critiqued can be a combination of these:

• Nervous
• Defensive
• Very Confident
• Unconfident
• Closed to change
• Open to change
• Eager to learn and improve
• Believe they know it all
• Looking for ideas
• Looking for lines/words to use verbatim
• Looking for confirmation (a pat on the back or round of applause)
• Looking for confirmation, belief they are absolutely right
• Personally too attached to their work
• Arrogant
• Unappreciative of effort of reviewers
• Unresponsive (no response to comments)
• Selfish (all about them)
• Argumentative
• Fear their work will be thought of as inferior
• Unaware of process and method of critique

 

Members offering/giving their critique of a posted work can be a combination of these.:

 

• Considerate
• Direct
• Detailed
• Judgemental (They know it all, their way is the right way etc)
• Vague
• Focused on the Negatives (completely forgetting what works, what is good)
• Biased
• Arrogant
• Antagonistic / Provocative
• Thoughtful
• Helpful
• Constuctive
• Destructive
• Offer suggestions /solutions
• Fail to offer suggestions/ solutions
• Argumentative
• Focused on their ideas being adopted
• Flippant
• Well meaning
• Skilled
• Unskilled
• Absolute
• Experienced
• Fear their skills are not good enough, or that they will be challenged and their opinion ridiculed
• Wrapped up in the challenge
• Unaware of impact  of words on writers
• Feeling responsible for effectiveness of critique
• Feeling no responsibility for effectiveness of critique

 

Other factors that might influence activity are if writers fail to perform any reviews. That can annoy reviewers. Lack of time can make people more blunt than intended. Text as a medium can distort emotion. What you say with humour can sometimes come over as ridiculing or nasty.

 

Our critique section can be daunting to new members or guests. It can appear almost violent. This makes new members less likely to take part. If members have a bad experience they communicate this to others (on and off our boards). It can cause members to drift away. It can put prospective members off ever joining.

 

Suggestions

 

Expectation of writers needs to be improved. I think a “Getting started in Critique” video might help improve expectation? That might make it more approachable and help new members have a realistic expectation of the critique process. I will keep my suggestions and observations for writers, beyond the above, to a follow on video on the critique process.

 

That said I would say, don’t mistake a reviewer offering a lot of detail as a personal criticism. They are trying to help.

 

Offering critique?

 

Reviewers tend to be experienced members.

 

Experienced members set an example for other members of the expectation of behaviour.. what is okay, and what isn’t. Not just on the critique boards, but right across the forums.

 

Rules help set the the backdrop, and some of the tone, but the active members are responsible for setting the overall tone of a forum or individual board.

 

Specifically on the critique board, balance is important. I see so many critiques that are a list of perceived failings, whilst rarely mentioning what works. Critique often stops there. Critique should be:

 

• Observation
• Analysis
• Suggestions
• Discussion

 

This should apply to positives, not just negatives. For example:

 

“I love your use of emotive language. It really helps engage the listener and makes it easier to connect with the song. It also helps make the chorus all the more forceful. One suggestion would be to use more extreme versions of the same emotions or using adverbs to magnify or modify meaning. Like the difference between “sad” and “desolate”. It could be made more interesting by modifying it too... “gentle desolation”, “tortured desolation”. Just an idea for you to consider.

 

At the end of the day, the reviewer’s job is not to persuade the writer to change their work. It is to highlight possibilities, explain mechanisms, offer perspective, offer suggestions, discuss the song... and leave it to the writer to decide what they want to do.

 

Avoid being antagonistic. There is no purpose in offering opinion in such a way that it elicits a defensive reaction. When dealing with an experienced member I know they will appreciate my blunt, to the point observations etc... because they are used to critique. They won’t take it personally. Equally I respect them and know they like that direct discussion. Importantly, not everyone likes critique that way.

 

There is a temptation amongst some experienced reviewers to try and cram in all their observations in one or two posts. That can easily overwhelm someone new to critique. After a couple of points they just hear “They think my lyric is crap” and either respond defensively, or they crumple... even to the point of giving up songwriting. Critique should NEVER come to that.

 

Far better to expand awareness an issue or two at a time. For writers with a number of regular issues it is more important that they progress. There is absolutely nothing wrong with you prioritising the observations you make, or for you to say “I can see other things we could talk of but I think making this change would make a real difference. If you agree it helps, awesome, but it is up to you.”

 

The writer is the one in control. If you don’t know the writer, assume they are not used to critique until you know otherwise. Instead of investing 30 minutes in an in-depth critique and possibly feeling agrieved when your well thought out critique is poorly received (possibly for some of the reasons outlined above), try out picking out one issue at a time... and if you detect a strong resistance to ideas... don’t spend more time trying to persuade. Say, “Fair enough, it’s completely up to you” and walk away. Avoid passing further comment such as ”Fair enough, it’s completely up to you, but I think you are crazy” That effectively is a personal comment. Be content that you identified the issue to them, and offered a solution and were willing to discuss it.

 

If you can’t identify a solution, don’t make the observation unless you are actively pressed on a point.

 

True we are not running a nursery, but the reality is that member experience and resilience varies massively.

 

STAY ON TOPIC... THE SONG. KEEP GENERAL SONGWRITING POINTS AND PHILOSOPHIES FOR A DISCUSSION ON THIS BOARD. During a song review it can be quite emotive... especially when the writer has a strong personal connection to a song. Making general songwriting points during a review can appear like a general criticism of the writer. Even if you feel that way, just like other personal criticism, it is best avoided... if only for the sake of a pleasant environment.

 

I hope this is of use and I welcome discussion on the subject.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

 

 

 

[ImKeN]

Pretty much agree with you, @john. I try not overwhelm the new comers with too much critical feedback, it can be a little much to have a complete stranger rip your song apart. It happened to me once when I first started out(another forum), it was actually my first ever forum and first post(talk about being unlucky!). I basically got told that my country song(I was into Shania at the time - still a fan, tho) sounded like $h#.. And it did, I'll be honest(lol), but this guy had no filter between his brain and mouth.

 

"If you don’t know the writer, assume they are not used to critique until you know otherwise." - I'm running with this.

 

Thanks!

[MonoStone]

I always thought the go easy/both barrels idea was a good one, but it would be better if it was clear per thread rather than in the member's profile. I also think that new members posting for critique should say a little bit about their level of experience.

 

I think the way we critique will tend to be swayed to some extent by the way the original poster worded their request for critique or.... often...didn't bother to say anything at all ... So a lot of the time it's up to the poster to set the tone.

 

I've rarely seen unfairly harsh or insulting critiques on here... so my main thought is - What's up?

 

If I was writing the rules I'd shorten it to -

 

Posters - Say what elements you're looking for critique on, tag the level of critique you're willing to take, state your experience in the various elements (if you're a new member) so that you'll be reviewed as new to creating music or been at it for years or whatever... and ... don't post for critique if you honestly didn't really want critique but rather wanted some smoke blown up your arse. Remember to check the work of other members so that you know who's worth listening to.... be selective. Don't be a dick.

Reviewers - Be honest, totally honest... but don't say anyone is just sh1t, and unless it's technical feedback which you're certain you're correct about and you're obviously qualified (through EXAMPLE) to say what's 'right or wrong' then please remember to state it's just personal opinion. Don't write pure opinions, or what some knobend told you was right/wrong, as fact. Don't shout about how amazing or experienced you are, demonstrate it by posting your own stuff so anyone can decide how amazing you are, or aren't. Don't be a dick.

 

Hope that's helpful...all just my opinions 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Jenn]

4 minutes ago, MonoStone said:

Don't be a dick.

 

[Richard Tracey]

5 hours ago, MonoStone said:

I always thought the go easy/both barrels idea was a good one, but it would be better if it was clear per thread rather than in the member's profile. I also think that new members posting for critique should say a little bit about their level of experience.

 

I think the way we critique will tend to be swayed to some extent by the way the original poster worded their request for critique or.... often...didn't bother to say anything at all ... So a lot of the time it's up to the poster to set the tone.

 

Dek, this is something I also agree with. We have had this conversation. I would also go as far as making it a tag as well, so if you want ‘go easy on me’ it is the pinned tag so members can see it and that should set the tone. I was aware when I chose ‘both barrels’, I was going to get that, but it was still a bit of a shock just how that kind of critique can hit you. You need to be prepared for it, so the members asking really need to say what they are after.

[MonoStone]

4 hours ago, Richard Tracey said:

 

Dek, this is something I also agree with. We have had this conversation. I would also go as far as making it a tag as well, so if you want ‘go easy on me’ it is the pinned tag so members can see it and that should set the tone. I was aware when I chose ‘both barrels’, I was going to get that, but it was still a bit of a shock just how that kind of critique can hit you. You need to be prepared for it, so the members asking really need to say what they are after.

 

Yeah I'm not sure what the answer is. I suppose critique means critique and it has to always be honest to have any value. It can hurt, I hate getting negative or 'meh' feedback on the 'song' (as opposed to the technical side like the mix) but I prefer that to having smoke blown up my arse, because I really care about the quality of what I 'release' (for want of a better word) and besides useful technical critique this place is also a good sanity check.

 

Preventing trolls and insults is obviously important but that's different to direct, honest feedback which may seem negative just because that's the honest opinion. The tags maybe wouldn't really direct the type of feedback, but more likely determine whether or not actual critique is wanted and given....as opposed to support. In truth the only tag for 'critique' should be 'be honest with me'.... although tags will be often be ignored, as will written guides/rules by management or an opening post asking for critique only on a certain element, so ... guides and tags are useful but whatever happens you just roll with it, and all critique and opinions are useful in some way provided they're honest but still you take what you want to take and ignore what you want to ignore. If anyone packs their bags because they got a negative comment then for one reason or another they probably shouldn't have been there in the first place...the rest of us will either ignore or learn from such comments, even if not always initially thankfully.

 

I dunno, being creative can be depressing and lead to some hurt at times no matter what..  it's just the way it is... it's a sh1t biznis.

 

I'm in two minds as to whether clearly false positive 'nice' comments should lead to the reviewer being called out or not.... I suppose there's a place for it, some people just won't be helped by honest critique, and we can never be sure we know what someone else honestly thinks, but there are times when it bugs me... a bit

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Richard Tracey]

@MonoStone - it may be that we need to change the culture of giving critique. We might have to temper our impulse to reply with an all out critique that we think the song/lyrics need, but take into consideration what the posting member is looking for and try and give them that. We can maybe add in a couple of other points, but precede it with, they can ignore if they want.

Some may feel it will dilute the forums, but we need to remember, every person on here is different. We all have different sense of humour, we all have different things going on in our lives that may affect how we reply/respond at any given time.

Some members may think that they are being funny and having a laugh, but others don’t see that as they don’t know that member, they don’t know what other members may know about their character.

Some people join forums with the deliberate MO to troll. Others may come across in that manner, but that is only because they don’t know how to interact online.

What every person on the forums need to remember, that every person they interact with is another human being. They have feelings, they have expectations and if either are hurt, they will react. That may be someone coming across as curt, obtuse or any other attitude that annoys most reasonable people. It’s how we as individuals, react to that, it is how we conduct ourselves. We should only act with people how we want people to act with us. I was taught this from a young age and it is my motto in life. You treat me like shit, well you better expect it back. If you treat me in the manner that I always approach someone, then you will have someone who will have your back and at some point consider you a friend.

Life is too short, we should all remember that.

Now let’s get back to writing some music/lyrics for the members to critique😁

[john]

13 minutes ago, MonoStone said:

 

Yeah I'm not sure what the answer is. I suppose critique means critique and it has to always be honest to have any value. It can hurt, I hate getting negative or 'meh' feedback on the 'song' (as opposed to the technical side like the mix) but I prefer that to having smoke blown up my arse, because I really care about the quality of what I 'release' (for want of a better word) and besides useful technical critique this place is also a good sanity check.

 

Preventing trolls and insults is obviously important but that's different to direct, honest feedback which may seem negative just because that's the honest opinion. The tags maybe wouldn't really direct the type of feedback, but more likely determine whether or not actual critique is wanted and given....as opposed to support. In truth the only tag for 'critique' should be 'be honest with me'.... although tags will be often be ignored, as will written guides/rules by management or an opening post asking for critique only on a certain element, so ... guides and tags are useful but whatever happens you just roll with it, and all critique and opinions are useful in some way provided they're honest but still you take what you want to take and ignore what you want to ignore. If anyone packs their bags because they got a negative comment then for one reason or another they probably shouldn't have been there in the first place...the rest of us will either ignore or learn from such comments, even if not always initially thankfully.

 

I dunno, being creative can be depressing and lead to some hurt at times no matter what..  it's just the way it is... it's a sh1t biznis.

 

I'm in two minds as to whether clearly false positive 'nice' comments should lead to the reviewer being called out or not.... I suppose there's a place for it, some people just won't be helped by honest critique, and we can never be sure we know what someone else honestly thinks, but there are times when it bugs me... a bit

 

 

It is not about compromising honesty, but we all know that HOW we say something can make a difference.

 

Also, critique is not just about acknowledging problems, but also the good points. In critiques on our boards often the latter is neglected... 

 

The other biggie is about overwhelming people with a list of problems. If you spot 20 issues (for example) in the writing of a beginner, it does not compromise honesty to address only 2 while acknowledging that more exist... for example :

 

“I can see a number of potential issues you could address, and strengths that could be built on, but I would suggest we just focus on 2 aspects just now. I think it would be more straightforward to prioritise. We can look at the other aspects later if you want?”

 

It is honest, it allows you to prioritise the issues as you see them, and it doesn’t overwhelm. It also provides some balance and allows critique to be digestible. The purpose is to help improve the song, and to help the songwriter. The approach I mention doesn’t compromise that. In fact it nurtures it.

 

As far a trolls go, trolling in the guise of critique does happen. Being deliberately provicative during critique is easy to do. Introducing sarcasm and ridicule is a big problem... and it happens. Combine listing a load of negatives only, with offering no solutions, offering nothing actually constructive, and presenting it in a way that ridicules the writer or makes a joke at their expense, may be entertainment for the person doing it, but for the person on the receiving end it can be a very different experience.

 

Now I know almost all members want to help. Just like learning to write better songs, members can learn to more effectively offer critique. That should come as no surprise!

 

Most members will be unaware of why people leave. Why people become reluctant to take part. Because I am admin I get a bit more insight. Members sometimes tell me.

 

To give you an idea of how serious it can be, I know of at least one person who gave up writing after receiving a barrage of negatives, ridicule, no constructive comments other than vague suggestion. The member left. I asked why. They told me. Generally the reaction is not as severe.

 

Now I know a great number of people have benefited from our forums, but we can improve the process. We can make it more friendly, more accessible, without compromising honesty. We can make it more useful and less fraught. Surely that is beneficial to all?

 

Perhaps members would be willing to take to take part in critique of their critique process? I think it could be very useful.

 

 

[MonoStone]

1 hour ago, HoboSage said:

I'm also always cognizant of the "snowball effect" on the critique boards.  Once one reviewer highlights a negative or a positive with a work posted, subsequent posters will  invariably address the previous reviews too, even if only by implication

 

Good point. I think I've suggested before... isolating reviewers by making previous comments only visible to the poster (perhaps until an 'end' point) would probably result in more varied and honest reviews rather than people picking up on or just confirming what someone else said. It would be an interesting experiment at least...wouldn't it?

 

And now I think about it, it occurs to me that if every review is initially done in private, it might change the tone of some reviews, as a PM review might. (I'm not suggesting PM reviews... just hiding reviews from other members until a time limit or button is hit by the OP.)

 

EDIT - I understand why this might seem bad for a forum, less clear activity, but if the thread shows the number of posts but just hidden for a time, then it might be kind of fun too.

 

 

 

Edited February 1, 2018 by MonoStone

[MonoStone]

1 hour ago, Richard Tracey said:

 

I am actually against this idea. I think it deprives other members from reading information that might to inform on something they are doing, or find some insight into a particular process in the creation of music.

 

We have members who have a vast knowledge base and that is something that should be highlighted and not kept hidden away.

 

My original idea/suggestion was to only hide replies (from everyone other than the OP) for a limited time, until a set number of replies are in or until the OP clicked to show....the 'reveal'...  So it wouldn't deprive anyone of the info you mention. It's not a very 'forum' idea for a forum (edit - Although if conversation continues after the reveal it has the potential to INCREASE discussion), but it was just an idea specifically for critique, and could be a choice setting for the OP per topic, so not universal. That said.... I'd guess it's not something the admin could just switch on so maybe a custom job, so it'll likely remain an idea whether it's liked or not

 

David's take on it is another way to do it, which is available to everyone anyway through PM, so that doesn't change anything for the forum (I think several of us have PMd for feedback at one time or another, for one reason or another).

 

 

Edited February 6, 2018 by MonoStone

[john]

4 hours ago, MonoStone said:

I'd guess it's not something the admin could just switch on so maybe a custom job, so it'll likely remain an idea whether it's liked or not

 

I'm sure I have a prize here somewhere...?

 

I did look and certainly can't do this currently. It would be pretty strange if you could see the OP's original posts but no one else's reply. That brings it down to a private conversation between two members... a PM.

 

As Richard says, the problem then becomes that no one can benefit from the insights people have other than the OP and individual reviewer. Equally they cannot benefit from someone else's insight when they spot an issue with a proposed solution or can provide a less extreme solotuion etc.

 

I think if instead we have a good think about policy and how it can help. For example, if instead of immediate critique a member posts a quick summation of what they would like to discuss about the song... and the OP then chooses a max of 2 people to discuss their song with? During the process if someone else observes something they can ask to join on that specific perpective. If the OP wants that input they can then give the person the go-ahead to join... otherwise it's thanks but no thanks... I want to stay on point. etc.

 

While we can't lock people out, we can have policy and guidelines to refelect the above.

[Just1L]

22 minutes ago, john said:

I think if instead we have a good think about policy and how it can help. For example, if instead of immediate critique a member posts a quick summation of what they would like to discuss about the song... and the OP then chooses a max of 2 people to discuss their song with? During the process if someone else observes something they can ask to join on that specific perpective. If the OP wants that input they can then give the person the go-ahead to join... otherwise it's thanks but no thanks... I want to stay on point. etc.

 

Can't we just have a section called "Safe Space" where only nice things can be said? 

 

If the problem with the critiques is they point out problems with the song and the poster doesn't want to hear them, why is it on the one giving the critique and not the one that needs to grow thicker skin? If they expect to survive in the music world they won't be able to cry their way to the top. Also, if someone posts a song and gets a lot of negative feedback, maybe the song could be better. Isn't that what most people want to know? To me a lot of the proposals seem like they would only bring the site down as opposed to being useful. For example. Lets say you have a teacher in school and you get all A's because the teacher is very nice and lenient, and really, not that good of a teacher. How will that help you when you get to college, or have a job, and you really aren't half as good as you were made to believe?

[john]

1 minute ago, Just1L said:

If the problem with the critiques is they point out problems with the song and the poster doesn't want to hear them, why is it on the one giving the critique and not the one that needs to grow thicker skin?

 

It's on both. However, it is the one offering critique that will feel they are wasting their time the longer they spend on such a topic.

 

That said, most members do both roles. The fact is that it is the OP's song. They are always gioing to have creative control.

 

Last point on that is that there tend to be more beginners posting for critique than giving critique... in part because they feel unconfident about offering an opinion, no matter how much they are encouraged. It's just the way things are.

 

If you want to waste time convincing someone that doesn't want to hear what you say, fair enough. You know, and we know, that in such a situation it is common that the person whose material is under critique in such a scenarion is likely to get defensive if you keep pressing a point. My suggestions are in part aimed at reflecting the realism of the balance of experience, and the avoidance of arguments and of wasted time.

[john]

10 minutes ago, Just1L said:

Lets say you have a teacher in school and you get all A's because the teacher is very nice and lenient, and really, not that good of a teacher. How will that help you when you get to college, or have a job, and you really aren't half as good as you were made to believe?

 

It's not about being dishonest or lenient. It's not about making poor observations.

 

Going by your analogy, what good would a teacher be if when you went along they spent the lesson listing what you don't know how to do without point you to some solid areas of work, giving you working methodologies, pointing you at good books etc. Teachers have to decide what you can absorb when you are new to a subject, and then divide it into lessons. At some point they have to decide what they will teach you and when, precisely because they know they will overwhelm beginners very easily. They ensure you understand each bit before they move on to teaching you the next.

 

This is not teaching, but it does have a learning element.

 

That aside, my suggestions so far have mainly revolved around taking the heat out of critique and trying to help it stay on point. None of us are served well by unnecessary and entirely avoidable arguments. It isn't fun and it isn't constructive.

[Richard Tracey]

I think for me, instead of having to create different ‘spaces’ for newer members to critique or narrowing down how many people can post/allowed to post on a topic, we should be looking at emphasising what that member is looking for with their critique. To often they post up ‘hey, whatdyafink’, they give no indication of what they want to know, the level of critique that they expect, or even give some kind of background to the song so the other members can make an informed decision before listening/reading and offering their time to critique.

 

Yes, we have the option on the side bar, but not everyone is using it.

 

I propose that unless a post includes a disclaimer at the top with one of say 3 or 4 headings for type of critique they will accept and offer some kind of insight into the song/music/lyrics whatever, then that post is ignored and possibly hidden until they do so. It might get members thinking when they post. I am past the stage of having to ask on posts what exactly the member is looking for and to provide more information.

 

I say we get ‘tough’ on them - show no mercy....

[MonoStone]

I think the idea of the OP choosing people, in a structured way, is a bad idea. 

 

People choose who they listen to or don't anyway... they don't need rules for that... it doesn't need all the reviewers to stand in a row hoping to get picked. As OP you just say thanks to everyone but take on board the points you want... ignore what you want to ignore...that's how it works with normal people.

 

To be honest the system wasn't broken... or wasn't when I joined.

 

Promote honesty. Kick out trolls. Value the experts. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[john]

1 hour ago, MonoStone said:

To be honest the system wasn't broken... or wasn't when I joined.

 

It is still healthy to look at what can be done to address any issues that do arise.

 

For any system to work it requires the buy in of all concerned. It doesn’t take many agitators to break a system for all the rest. 

 

We we can only float out ideas to discuss them. If others members like or dislike them, they are adjusted or dismissed accordingly.

 

There is nothing wrong with what we have, but it does require both writers and critiquer’s to be considerate of the other, and to have a realistic understanding and expectation of the process. When that breaks down or there is a lack of tolerance, problems occur.

 

David mentioned one issue that requires awareness on the part of critiquers, that of the snowball/avalanche effect. Perhaps awareness and willingness for members to call it when they see it is all that would be needed?

 

That said, my original post was more about consideration on both parts, and awareness that new members are very much an unknown quantity. That was always the case, and that awareness was always needed. Of late, some of that foundation has been strained. The new site rule changes just clarified existing rules and penalties. My critique process suggestions were very much in response to points raised in topic.

 

As for trolls, if you see it, report it. The more it is indulged or responded to, the more mods need to unpick to see who originally bated who, if they can.