MadTracker.org Review Guide

1.1. Why this document?
1.2. What is the goal of this document?

2.1. Why review music?
2.2. Things to do before listening
2.3. The first listening session
2.4. Further listening
2.5. Writing the review
2.6. Revising the review

1. Introduction

1. the amount of reviews that are not submitted by the review moderators (music section)
2. the feedback from the musicians whose music has been reviewed (music section & compo)
3. the seemingly unrelated style of reviews during last years compo (compo)

1: A reasonable amount of reviews consists only of "great song... keep it up!" or "this sucks". A review should be more than just a subjective opinion; it should enable the author to get knowledge about good and bad points of his song, including concrete leads to possible improvement and fact-based arguments to indicate strong characteristics.

2: Interpreting a review can be hard as a musician; who doesn’t know the feeling of immense pride once your sacred song is finally finished for publication? Getting confronted with a negative review can be quite a shocking experience: your grail of beauty turned out to be nothing more than an old cup of dirt. The most easy way to accept such a realization is when the review offers to possibility to polish future cups.

3: Both actual marks as written reviews differed a lot last year among the different judges. Sometimes the description of two judges was the same, but the marks totally differed, and vice versa. The reviews in a compo should be equal and fair, independent of the reviewer who made it.

Top

2. Reviewing

The mass of the producers out there are passive participants in the music scene; they only deliver music, but won’t comment on the work of others. There are numerous reasons to act this way: one can have difficulties expressing his perception in words, one may lack the time to do so, or one might just not be interested in the music of others. This document can (partly) solve the first two reasons: it will help you express yourself properly and it will save you time by offering a standard procedure.

So why would you review music? First of all, producers are fascinated by music; they create their own music, analyze the work by others, and have strong opinions and preferences. This implies that you, as a producer, have the basic talents to review it: you don’t simply say ‘it sucks!’ or ‘it rocks!, but you can actually pinpoint what components of a song are hitching, and what components make a song as good as it is.

Furthermore, reviewing music helps you creating better music yourself in an indirect manner. When reviewing music, you will learn much about pitfalls and opportunities that can induce both bad as good characteristics into a song. The knowledge that follows the analysis of music can be implemented in your own work.

Last, but certainly not least, you support both your fellow-musician as the scene as an entity. Feedback is a very important step for a producer in the process of growing. Besides that, a good review will result in a chainreaction; you will show to others what use it can have, and your own music will get reviewed earlier. All this for only for at the most 45 minutes of your time!

• Choose the song to review wisely. If you’re a hardcore traditional Irish folk music listener, your appreciation of post-modern experiments with white noise might be close to zero. A good review reflects the song both as an individual as in the context of its genre. You need to be able to both understand the song as to know how it relates to similar songs. If you do decide to review music ‘outside’ your own musical world, consider doing some research; check what the genre is about, how the important artists of it sound, and how the song stands up in the crowd of its analogous songs.
• Use the latest version of MadTracker available. Make sure that your version of MadTracker completely supports every feature of the song. By doing so you ensure yourself that what you are listening is exactly what the author intended to give to you.
• Disable High-Q Filters ('Edit' -> 'Configuration' -> 'Audio' tab -> untick 'High-Q Filters') and put your gain at 4 ('Edit' -> 'Configuration' -> 'Audio' tab -> Gain '4'). This way you ensure that you use the same audio settings as the producer of the track, since the same information is given in the producer guide.
• Read the message of the MT2 ('File'; -> 'Parameters' -> 'Message' tab), and include any relevant information into your perception of the song. If the author strongly advices to listen the song with headphones and in a laidback environment, try to do so. If the song is said to be energetic, throw your volumefader all the way up.
• Discard previous reviews that you have read about this song. Forget previous feedback that the author has given on your music. Neglect past flame wars with the producer.

Give the song the attention it deserves. Try to focus completely on the song while listening it for the first time. Furthermore the possibility exists that you are encountering a song that just isn’t good. Try to remain focused though, and try to define concrete opinions in your head about good and bad points. Do not make too fast judgements; a song might need to grow on you. Try to remain objective, even if the the initial first minute was horrible.

Don’t ‘open up’ the song. You are discouraged to mute channels, listen individual samples or check the exact chords during your first listening session. Try listening to the song as a ‘regular’ song that you would listen from CD. This is because individual components of a song might be odd or false, whereas they fit extremely well in the entire spectrum of the song.

• Start with a general introduction to the song. Try defining the genre it can be placed in, and try to relate the song to 'famous' music. Readers are unaware of what they are offered, and your review might trigger them to actually download and listen the song.
• After your introduction, make a paragraph with positive points, followed by a paragraph with negative points. Try to tell per point what the cause is that you mention it, and what the relative importance in the total rating is.
• Explain every expression you use. If a melody sounds impressive, try to define what has caused this. If a drum sounds static, mention how this perception is generated.
• Include a constructive advice with every negative point mentioned. Use your own knowledge, experience and intuition about music and its production to do so.
• Be concrete in your indications: refer to pattern numbers or exact points of time in the song. 'A click in the bridge' is less easy to retrieve than 'channel 14 clicks in pattern 30 at 2.33'.
• Refer to other songs if you are unable to transform your ideas into words. Every genre has its own examples of ‘how it should sound’, and directing a producer to such a song can greatly help him to understand what is missing or lacking.
• Make a final conclusion, that gives the explanation for the rating in one or two sentences.

After you wrote your review, save it temporarily, and re-read it after one or more days. Listen to the song you reviewed while reading, and check if you need to make adjustments. A review can be influenced by the environment/atmosphere/time that you are in while writing, and a second view might remove opinions too subjective or too much emphasized.

Top