Garageband, reviews, and my take
EDIT by matthew: Due to comments (read below), and for some reason the insane popularity of this particular page on my weblog, I just want to attach this notice. My opinion on “the day after” my first day reviewing bands on Garageband differs from my opinion today. I still think the average musical quality at Garageband is somewhere between subterranean and ridiculously low, but I still use the site — which, despite my criticism, shows that I still think it’s pretty good despite major flaws. There’s nothing better out there of which I’m aware at the moment. This was my “day after” reaction to doing a lot of GB reviews in a row, and the experience really stunk.
Last night I decided to sign up for Garageband. I’d heard a bit about it, and as a community of musicians who largely spend a lot of their time reviewing other musicians, it sounded very interesting to me. I went into this with the mindset that I would try to write positive reviews, get exposed to a lot of really great music by artists who are as yet unknown, and upload my music for peer review.
Critical Mass
The concept is pretty good, and it seems like GB has the “critical mass” of musicians it needs to keep sustained interest. Heck, apparently out of the 70,000 “bands” on the site, 12 have been signed, and 1 has gone double platinum. Yeah, the chances aren’t very good if you look at the numbers, but my goal isn’t to get signed and make mondo money, it is to just get some review on my songs and maybe sell rights to someone to make a bit of spare cash.
Hey, less likely things have been known to happen 🙂
Garageband reviewing is like earning a Ph.D. in crap.
B.S. = Bachelor of Sh–.
M.S. = Master of Sh–.
Ph.D. = Piled Higher And Deeper.
Well, after four solid hours of doing reviews in order to qualify for my first upload, allow me to share with you a bit about the experience. The lessons I learned were these:
- 90% of everything people think is good enough to get peer-reviewed is pure crap.
- Once again, most of it is utter, complete, and absolute drivel. And crap.
- It is dreck, muck, slime, useless poorly mastered nasty stuff that half the time is out of tune, and nearly half of the rest of the time is performed or mastered so poorly it’s tough to find anything positive to say about it. It’s crap.
- If it is mastered well, it tends to have no soul. And that makes it crappy.
- If it isn’t mastered well, at the 64kbit/sec bitrate that’s the max Garageband will pump out to you on a review (confirmed on a T-1 no less) makes it sound even worse. Crap on steroids.
Have bass, will travel!
Then there are performances themselves. Ugh. I listened to a band last night where their bassist had the low E string on his bass tuned nearly a full semitone flat. Either that, or he was consistently hitting every note wrong on that string. Another recording sounded as if it had been done with a portable tape recorder, high and tinny and barely-discernable. And I listened to some kid with an acoustic guitar singing his heart out to a pretty boring tune, but I felt nostalgic listening to a fifteen-year-old pouring his soul into a crappy tune and had to smile.
That’s a small sample. Not to mention the “funk” song that really should have had the “n” replaced with a “c”, because all the guy could sing about was getting it on with some chick. He couldn’t sing for beans, but he was obviously extremely enthusiastic about his subject matter.
And I hesitate to mention the beautifully mastered but completely soul-less heavy metal tune with a very talented lead guitarist and incredibly lame drum machine and formulaic background guitars.
Perhaps I shouldn’t tell you about the clip where the drummer, bassist, guitarist, and vocalist seemed to all be fighting over who was the loudest and the most outrageous for the entire tune.
Or maybe I’ve just mentioned all of them 🙂
All told, out of the thirty reviews I completed in my first night on the job (and it really feels like a job), I’d absolutely panned about half of them. 40% of them I gave some pointers on what I felt they could improve about the tune, but mentioned that even with the improvements I probably wouldn’t buy the album because the song just wasn’t interesting. The remaining three songs had some soul to them, generally had technical issues, but were solid tunes.
Ghetto of musicality
If you’re looking to find high-quality music from unknown bands, Garageband reviewing ain’t the place. It’s the ghetto of musicality, the spot where wanna-be’s go to try to be heard. [Note: cruising the top-100 list by genre on Garageband is pretty fun, though. It’s generally the next seven hundred or more in the genre that suck. – matthew] I understand the “70,000 to 1” ratio there now. 67,000 of those bands are awful. So you’re left with 3,000 bands or solo artists that might be pretty good.
Anyway, my reviews on these tunes were heartfelt, honest, and tried to be constructive to offer some input into how the performers could improve the song. I found something positive to comment about every tune, although normally the negatives outweighed the positives at least 2:1 for each one. I rated every song honestly, and can truly say there wasn’t a single song the entire night that I’d want to buy, and only one where I considered it “engaging” (Garageband’s highest standard of listenability). I reviewed pop, pop/rock, heavy metal, alternative, rap (that was fun, I’m not a fan of rap but it was a blast commenting on the musicality of the performers and the performance value), R&B, hip-hop, and funk. Some songs were definitely mis-categorized.
Rate the Reviewers
An interesting thing happened as I was reviewing, though. I began getting feedback from the performers. See, they rate the quality of your review, so that other performers know what kind of reviewer you are. It is on a scale from one to five, with one meaning “this guy didn’t even listen to the song, cut & pasted nonsense words from other reviews, used profanity, and did not offer constructive criticism”, and five basically meaning “the review quality was excellent, even if I didn’t like what it said”. The vast majority of my ratings are fives now.
But the ones bug me.
In every case where I received a “one”, I’m utterly certain the artist didn’t rate me honestly or give me the honesty my review deserved. The only way to get a 1 is if they think you didn’t listen to the song [see comments below which qualify that this is no longer the case as of Nov 2003 – matthew], which was never the case. 30 songs took me FOUR HOURS, because I listened to most of the songs twice so I could give an accurate review on repeat listenability.
Why did I get some 1 ratings?
Well, one of the artists summed it up nicely for me. He explained:
You don’t know who you are messing with … You’re new here, remember that … Some people here are just kids, you shouldn’t be so acerbic in your reviews.
I checked it out. His song was another one that was just awful, poor production quality, out-of-tune instruments, and a lead singer who couldn’t hold a tune in a bucket. He’d also rated my review a “1”, trying to imply that it was a cut & paste review with profanity where I’d obviously not listened to the song and offered no constructive criticism. Yet I’d explained exactly what was wrong with the tune, even so far as to include the timing of the problems I heard. He was also a bit offended that I’d listened to his tune twice when I didn’t like it at all, simply so that I could offer a more constructive review of whyI didn’t like it.
I have a plausible conclusion, handed me by one of the Garageband artists:
Some artists rate their reviewers down, and are willing to lie to attempt to repair their egos, when they simply don’t agree with the reviewer’s comments.
Fair enough. Now I understand it. It feels like an abuse of the system from where I sit, however.
The Solution?
Slashdot.org had a similar problem years ago with moderators abusing their positions; they unfairly moderated comments down that were good comments, but didn’t agree with the moderator’s opinion. This problem was so widespread that the Slashdot editors introduced the concept of “meta-mod”. A meta-moderator can moderate other people’s moderations as to their accuracy, on a sliding scale between “fair” and “unfair”. The net effect of this change is very obvious. These days, negative moderations seem to be largely performed because the opinion posted was a troll, off-topic, flamebait, or redundant — the key indicators that a post should be modded down. The vast majority of moderations moderate upwards or not at all, and meta-mod keeps the moderators honest. [according to comments below, Garageband is working to rectify this problem with a less anonymous system that may work as well. I await resolution with baited breath. -matthew]
Who will watch the watchers?
Now, there’s nobody keeping the meta-moderators honest, but since every citizen of the board can meta-mod almost daily, it seems to balance out (as if the bad meta-moderations get thrown out entirely).
Garageband could benefit from a similar system. Meta-moderation to ensure that reviewers and artists are being honest with each other, rather than just slamming one another because they disagree over a review, would be a big help to the GB community.
The Challenges
However, I think the community there suffers from another problem: Although they have nearly 300,000 subscribers, there don’t appear to be enough nearly reviewers. My guess is that people get tired of the abuse, ingratitude, and inept attempts at music they must often review, and just walk away. I don’t blame them. Unless you want to pay Garageband.com $20 so you can post a song, you have to review thirty tunes to post one tune. That’s a lot of listening time, unless you’re one of those people that like to write reviews based only on the first 90 seconds of the song. I make far more per hour working than saving $20 for the amount of time I spend reviewing.
Saving money, however, is not the reason I review music on Garageband.
When I’m reviewing, I hear the mistakes others make and recognize the same mistakes in my music. I’m improving my own abilities, while benefitting another artist with feedback so she can improve hers.
That’s the fun of the whole system.
I review; other musicians invite me to listen to them screw up. This helps me gain an ear that can distinguish the good from the bad, particularly since the bad is in such abundance. I learn from their mistakes and avoid them in my own music. I try to give constructive criticism in a helpful way, acknowledging the blood, sweat, and tears poured out into the music because I do the same myself. Sharing that part of the experience, the shared desire to better myself and others… that’s totally fun. That’s really the major thing that can keep me going on a long review session.
Even though I get moderated down as a reviewer for being an honest, though critical, listener. Nothing’s perfect, but my hope is that my explanation of a newbie’s first experience on Garageband is enlightening and leads to some improvement in the experience for future users.