Music reviews
 

http://www.jazz2online.com/J2Ov2/dow...p?levelID=3644

This recent upload got 2 reviews. One by me, and one by Joseph Collins.

While I liked it and gave it an 8.0, the other one gave it 2.2

Now I'm completely confused, as I really don't find it as bad.

When comparing both reviews (mine's slightly shorter, I know) I noticed mine was more about how it sounded in the end, while it seems Joseph Collins did judge more about how much work has been put into making the song.

So, what is right? Should one rate on how the song sounds or how hard it was to make?

(I've never really been into reviewing musics, so I'm not quiet sure)

Joseph Collins has, I noticed, been giving an awful lot of bad ratings, which is all based on his personal opinion. Clearly, your opinions differ. To complicate mattes, I have decided to throw in my own opinions into the fray.

I think that the quality of music is proportional to the amount of time the author spent working on it. The quality can be increased, however, without adding extra time if the author happens to be especially brilliant at music-making. However, in the end, the listener of the music can't possibly give a 'Post reply' button to find out how much work the author has put in. The listener is obviously more interested in, well, listening and generally enjoying/hating the great/rubbish music. In other words, I don't think it's fair to give a low rating because the author has put little time in it. I think it's fair to only give a low rating because of the consequences (the consequence being that the music is crap) of the author's poor efforts.

I think you are both equally right. If you look at big review sites like amazon, you'll notice the same things often getting lots of ratings on both sides of the scale. This diversity is a good thing.

A good remix should be rated on quality and originality. Quality is important because a bad mix is just bad, regardless of how innovative it might be. Originality is important because taking the original song and switching out samples or adding more drums might sound good, but it doesn't reflect on the remixer's skills nearly as much as the original composer's.

OverClocked has good remixes. J2O generally does not.

But OverClocked doesn't have JJ2 remixes. ;p

They pop up on the Works In Progress forum every so often, just nothing good enough to be posted on the site. Still better than most J2O stuff. Same goes for VGMix .

Well, all I can say is that I definitely do not agree with this Collins person...
Aaand I just reviewed myself. Whee!

I've seen most people have rated it fairly high now, so it seems I'm not that horribly overrating. Thanks for your opinions. :)

The music isn't that bad.. it's not really extremely creative, it's just a mixing around of several music pieces, and the flow doesn't work.. but it has nice sounds at places (the guitar parts work right, and the one voice part). I'd go for something like a 4.5-5.5. The music could have been miles and miles better. Right now it's just simple mixed stuff with some edits, and all the music pieces involved aren't done justice and taken to the max. And always there's the out of tune stuff, although less than usual.

What I wonder and will have to look into is, is this fair use at all? Should it be allowed to upload edited versions of copyrighted commercial music the RIAA watches over? I don't think so. This is going a bit farther than editing mods.