Ngadm 2010 Judges/ideas

[Step]

Many of you have heard of the NG Audio Deathmatch competition that is currently going on. It's quite a large success, and Darklight17 and I are planning on making one annually (till, of course, 2012 :P). Since I thought it's better now than later, here's a thread for ideas and suggestions that we can use for the NGADM 2010 (which will be held towards the end of summer) and we'll also be needing more judges too. Here are our ideas so far:

* More judges, as you already know. We're planning to go for around 5. Darklight17 and I will be the judges as usual, I don't know if SBB is willing to judge for the NGADM 2010 as well, and we'll be needing a few more judges. We're looking for people who have good knowledge in music. People who know how to judge, i.e.: they don't give a lower score to a song because it has a bad name or because it's a genre that they don't like, for example. We need harsh judges, people who can point out the problems and suggest how to fix them without beating around the bush. Just something to point out: harsh does not mean you give low scores automatically, and you never give out 10's unless the song is made by a music god. Harsh means you simply say what the problems are and say what the good things are, and you don't beat around the bush or not mention some problems because you think that it might offend the author. We don't want one-liners for reviews, and we don't need essays either (*Blush* :P), so if you're a judge, you'll have to find a way to write an organised, well-written, helpful and not-so-small/large review So yeah, anyone who's willing to judge can PM me and I'll fill him/her in with the details :).

* We're thinking of giving more time to the competitors, but we're not too sure. Was 2 weeks enough? If not, what's the ideal time?

* We might add this thing called a 'bonus round' which happens after around Round 3 or something. All of the competitors so far will be given a random task, such as, remix a particular song, make a song in a particular genre which is rarely made on NG, make a song in one of your opponent's genres, make a song which evokes a particular mood, make a song completely out of presets that come with your DAW, make a song out of percussion instruments, etc. The losers won't be excluded from the competition, but the winners get something such as 3 extra points in their Round 4 total, for example. Any suggestions for prizes, and more importantly, is a 'bonus round' a fun idea, or just a waste of time?

* We're possibly going to make auditions. We'll make a seperate thread where people post their best song. Once 32 people post their best song, a deadline is determined and people can continue posting their best song until that deadline is reached. So, for example, 32 people post their best song in the thread on, say, the 15th September. Then, the deadline would be, say, the 25th of September. Another 20 people post their best song, making a total of 52 people. Then, we choose the best 32 out of those 52 people based on their best song and those 32 are the people to take part. Is it really necessary, or would it be unfair?

* There's a chance we'll make the judging periods more flexible. For example, in Round 1, where 32 people will take part, we'll make the judging period 5 days, then in Round 2 it will be 4 days, Round 3 is 3 days, Round 4 is 2 and Round 5 is 1 day. This is because with the addition of more judges, it could be harder to push all of them to finishing so many songs in only 2 days, so just in case one of the judges can't review everything in only two days, at least there would be more than 2 days depending on the number of songs, which should be enough time. Is it OK if you wait for this long?

* We might improve the prize to the losers having to review 2 of the winner's songs instead of 1. Is it too much, or too little? If so, what's the best amount?

* This idea needs your opinions: should we make it that every competitor must post 5 genres he might make and each round, one of those 5 would be randomly picked for him to make a song out of, or is it useless? This is becuase we're trying to keep the deadlines fixed, instead of some people who may finish earlier having more time to make a song than the people who take more time to do a song. Should we do this?

* Obviously, the first post of the competition will be more organised, with more warnings saying that if a competitor doesn't think s/he can make a song in the time-restrictions of the competition, then s/he needn't apply, and we'll update the first post with any suggestions/rules you all come up with and with any of the above ideas you agree with.

We need your feedback on the above ideas, and any suggestions are welcome, even from people who never took part in the NGADM, but for said people, please familiarize yourself with the NGADM rules before posting ideas.

...In other words, yes, the rules of the next NGADM are up to you.

[Gravey]

lotta stuff

The winner of the NGADM should be required to be a judge during the next comp. Because obviously that person understands music and would be able to bring that knowledge to the table. Also it would prevent one person in winning it over and over again. Also, it would provide for a judge the next time without having to even search for anyone.

[nightsurfermusic]

I'd love to judge. I also agree with Gravey, that the previous winner should be a judge. Also, depending on how many people come in it, you should have a collab deathmatch too. ;)

[Step]

At 2/21/10 03:35 PM, Gravey wrote: The winner of the NGADM should be required to be a judge during the next comp. Because obviously that person understands music and would be able to bring that knowledge to the table. Also it would prevent one person in winning it over and over again. Also, it would provide for a judge the next time without having to even search for anyone.

True, but for the people who don't like judging, they might actually TRY and lose the competition :P. I was thinking that as one of the prizes you get a sig with 'Grand Champion of the NGADM' on it, and you retain that title. If in the next year you win again, you keep the title, and if someone else wins it, you lose the title. But yeah, what you're saying is completely true, that there's a chance that the same person could win more than once if he takes part in more than one NGADM. How about the winner of this NGADM gets to choose between judging or not taking part at all xP.

At 2/21/10 04:02 PM, Kaizerwolf wrote: I'd love to judge.

Awesome. I'll send you a PM with the details sometime tomorrow though, since I'm tired and lazy :P.

Also, depending on how many people come in it, you should have a collab deathmatch too. ;)

That idea never occured to me, and it's a good one. Maybe for the 2011 deathmatch we could try and get 64 contestants and they collab with each other? This deathmatch has been a mess, TBH, so we'd want to make the next one similar to this except better and more organised. Then, once we've got the routine of handling 32 solo contestants, we can move on to 32 collab teams for 2011 :). Also, this brings up another question. Should the collab pairings be picked randomly (obviously according to each DAW they're using), or everyone gets to choose?

[Gravey]

At 2/21/10 04:02 PM, Kaizerwolf wrote: I'd love to judge. I also agree with Gravey, that the previous winner should be a judge. Also, depending on how many people come in it, you should have a collab deathmatch too. ;)

Agreed. :-D

Also, now that the Magic-Cavs game is over I can really read this post thoroughly. A couple things I would like to discuss...

* We're thinking of giving more time to the competitors, but we're not too sure. Was 2 weeks enough? If not, what's the ideal time?

Two weeks is perfect if you ask me. Gives the judges a nice break between rounds, so they aren't constantly overwhelmed. Also for the most part people here write songs quickly, so two weeks is a good standard in my opinion. Granted I personally like to have more time, but overall I think it is a solid time format.

* We might add this thing called a 'bonus round' which happens after around Round 3 or something. All of the competitors so far will be given a random task, such as, remix a particular song, make a song in a particular genre which is rarely made on NG, make a song in one of your opponent's genres, make a song which evokes a particular mood, make a song completely out of presets that come with your DAW, make a song out of percussion instruments, etc. The losers won't be excluded from the competition, but the winners get something such as 3 extra points in their Round 4 total, for example. Any suggestions for prizes, and more importantly, is a 'bonus round' a fun idea, or just a waste of time?

That is a nifty idea, but I think it would take away from the momentum of the contest. Like once you really get into it, one doesn't like to have to focus on a lot of extracurricular things. Some might not mind, but I know that I personally would be really against this because it disrupts the flow of the comp and the momentum one has in writing.

* We're possibly going to make auditions. We'll make a seperate thread where people post their best song. Once 32 people post their best song, a deadline is determined and people can continue posting their best song until that deadline is reached. So, for example, 32 people post their best song in the thread on, say, the 15th September. Then, the deadline would be, say, the 25th of September. Another 20 people post their best song, making a total of 52 people. Then, we choose the best 32 out of those 52 people based on their best song and those 32 are the people to take part. Is it really necessary, or would it be unfair?

This is a great idea. Seriously, this is a wonderful idea. What you should do is once the Newgrounds death match is over immediately post the winner of course. But then post a second thread saying "The NGADM is over, so sign up for 2011 here!" And it would give people nearly an entire year to come up with something to post in order to enter the drawing for the competition. If the thread dies down for a couple weeks one of us could simply bump it once or twice a month in order to keep people aware of the competition.

* There's a chance we'll make the judging periods more flexible. For example, in Round 1, where 32 people will take part, we'll make the judging period 5 days, then in Round 2 it will be 4 days, Round 3 is 3 days, Round 4 is 2 and Round 5 is 1 day. This is because with the addition of more judges, it could be harder to push all of them to finishing so many songs in only 2 days, so just in case one of the judges can't review everything in only two days, at least there would be more than 2 days depending on the number of songs, which should be enough time. Is it OK if you wait for this long?

This setup is good. But you have to keep the judges to this schedule. That is the one problem right now, one of the judges we have is taking his/her sweet old time. Granted things happen and from time to time one might need a little time. But at the same time its been nearly two weeks since the last round of the NGADM concluded. There is no reason someone can't listen to a dozen songs and review them within that time frame.

* We might improve the prize to the losers having to review 2 of the winner's songs instead of 1. Is it too much, or too little? If so, what's the best amount?

This is irrelevant to me really. Two reviews is nothing really, so whatever you feel is best since you created this entire comp.

* This idea needs your opinions: should we make it that every competitor must post 5 genres he might make and each round, one of those 5 would be randomly picked for him to make a song out of, or is it useless? This is becuase we're trying to keep the deadlines fixed, instead of some people who may finish earlier having more time to make a song than the people who take more time to do a song. Should we do this?

This is a fail idea. First off one shouldn't have to give genres one wants to compose in, let alone five of them. I personally only write in different genres because I was stuck using a crap pc and worse gear. Now that I have pro gear and a new pc I am only going to be writing soundtrack sort of music from now on. I won't even have 5 genres I'm willing to write in. And a lot of people don't write in so many styles.

I understand you wanting to prevent people from finishing a song early and working on next rounds song. But that is sort of a perk of working fast. If you finish your round one song and post it, you should be required to wait til the next round starts to start your next song. Like I understand your point, but it isn't a valid one really. If you finish early by working hard and fast, then your reward should be that you get to start on your next song.

Plus if someone works fast it is possible their song isn't going to be as good. And therefore they might not even make it to the next round due to the fact that their first song was made hastily.

Also I would like to reiterate that the winner of a NGADM should be required to judge the next competition. It is a win scenario in every way you look at it really.

Overall the original NGADM was well done. But there were some issues to iron out, and I think that this thread post is a good way to figure a way to fix those issues.

[Step]

At 2/21/10 04:33 PM, Gravey wrote: Also, now that the Magic-Cavs game is over I can really read this post thoroughly. A couple things I would like to discuss...

Alright, Ima ready :3.

* We're thinking of giving more time to the competitors, but we're not too sure. Was 2 weeks enough? If not, what's the ideal time?

Two weeks is perfect if you ask me. Gives the judges a nice break between rounds, so they aren't constantly overwhelmed. Also for the most part people here write songs quickly, so two weeks is a good standard in my opinion. Granted I personally like to have more time, but overall I think it is a solid time format.

This could be in need of a vote, although usually the hardest part is thinking about what the song will be, not actually making it. Heck, if I got inspiration as easily as I wrote music, I'd be submitting new songs everyday. But as you said, most people here don't take as long to write music, so the question is, is two weeks enough to think of an idea for a song and make the song?

* We might add this thing called a 'bonus round' which happens after around Round 3 or something. All of the competitors so far will be given a random task, such as, remix a particular song, make a song in a particular genre which is rarely made on NG, make a song in one of your opponent's genres, make a song which evokes a particular mood, make a song completely out of presets that come with your DAW, make a song out of percussion instruments, etc. The losers won't be excluded from the competition, but the winners get something such as 3 extra points in their Round 4 total, for example. Any suggestions for prizes, and more importantly, is a 'bonus round' a fun idea, or just a waste of time?

That is a nifty idea, but I think it would take away from the momentum of the contest. Like once you really get into it, one doesn't like to have to focus on a lot of extracurricular things. Some might not mind, but I know that I personally would be really against this because it disrupts the flow of the comp and the momentum one has in writing.

Again, this may need a vote. I see your point, I just thought it could remove from the monotony of the contest, but as you said it could easily disrupt the flow. Another vote: is the bonus round necessary?

* We're possibly going to make auditions. We'll make a seperate thread where people post their best song. Once 32 people post their best song, a deadline is determined and people can continue posting their best song until that deadline is reached. So, for example, 32 people post their best song in the thread on, say, the 15th September. Then, the deadline would be, say, the 25th of September. Another 20 people post their best song, making a total of 52 people. Then, we choose the best 32 out of those 52 people based on their best song and those 32 are the people to take part. Is it really necessary, or would it be unfair?

This is a great idea. Seriously, this is a wonderful idea. What you should do is once the Newgrounds death match is over immediately post the winner of course. But then post a second thread saying "The NGADM is over, so sign up for 2011 here!" And it would give people nearly an entire year to come up with something to post in order to enter the drawing for the competition. If the thread dies down for a couple weeks one of us could simply bump it once or twice a month in order to keep people aware of the competition.

Wow, a whole year. It'll take a while to pick out 32 songs, but then there's more of a chance that the competitors will be experienced artists and the competition will be more gripping and intense. We could also start sending PMs to people, spreading the word about the competition.

* There's a chance we'll make the judging periods more flexible. For example, in Round 1, where 32 people will take part, we'll make the judging period 5 days, then in Round 2 it will be 4 days, Round 3 is 3 days, Round 4 is 2 and Round 5 is 1 day. This is because with the addition of more judges, it could be harder to push all of them to finishing so many songs in only 2 days, so just in case one of the judges can't review everything in only two days, at least there would be more than 2 days depending on the number of songs, which should be enough time. Is it OK if you wait for this long?

This setup is good. But you have to keep the judges to this schedule. That is the one problem right now, one of the judges we have is taking his/her sweet old time. Granted things happen and from time to time one might need a little time. But at the same time its been nearly two weeks since the last round of the NGADM concluded. There is no reason someone can't listen to a dozen songs and review them within that time frame.

Sorry... Darklight's been really busy and hasn't finished his reviews yet (both his parents are teachers which makes it even harder for him to come here on NG and do some reviews). SBB and I have finished though.

You are referring to us, right? :P

* We might improve the prize to the losers having to review 2 of the winner's songs instead of 1. Is it too much, or too little? If so, what's the best amount?

This is irrelevant to me really. Two reviews is nothing really, so whatever you feel is best since you created this entire comp.

Well, the winner would get 64 reviews in all if we do this, not 32, so it does make a difference in the end :P.

* This idea needs your opinions: should we make it that every competitor must post 5 genres he might make and each round, one of those 5 would be randomly picked for him to make a song out of, or is it useless? This is becuase we're trying to keep the deadlines fixed, instead of some people who may finish earlier having more time to make a song than the people who take more time to do a song. Should we do this?

This is a fail idea. First off one shouldn't have to give genres one wants to compose in, let alone five of them. I personally only write in different genres because I was stuck using a crap pc and worse gear. Now that I have pro gear and a new pc I am only going to be writing soundtrack sort of music from now on. I won't even have 5 genres I'm willing to write in. And a lot of people don't write in so many styles.

I understand you wanting to prevent people from finishing a song early and working on next rounds song. But that is sort of a perk of working fast. If you finish your round one song and post it, you should be required to wait til the next round starts to start your next song. Like I understand your point, but it isn't a valid one really. If you finish early by working hard and fast, then your reward should be that you get to start on your next song.

Plus if someone works fast it is possible their song isn't going to be as good. And therefore they might not even make it to the next round due to the fact that their first song was made hastily.

Yeah, now that you mention it, it isn't such a good idea. I was thinking it would help stop people from starting early while other people are still entering the contest, but if we have auditions, that wouldn't be a problem, since all the 32 would have been chosen beforehand and would start at the same time. So yes, it is a fail idea I suppose xP.

Also I would like to reiterate that the winner of a NGADM should be required to judge the next competition. It is a win scenario in every way you look at it really.

Vote?

Overall the original NGADM was well done. But there were some issues to iron out, and I think that this thread post is a good way to figure a way to fix those issues.

Thanks for the suggestions ^^.

[InvisibleObserver]

At 2/21/10 04:52 PM, Supersteph54 wrote: This could be in need of a vote, although usually the hardest part is thinking about what the song will be, not actually making it. Heck, if I got inspiration as easily as I wrote music, I'd be submitting new songs everyday. But as you said, most people here don't take as long to write music, so the question is, is two weeks enough to think of an idea for a song and make the song?

Majority of people on this site fall into a zone of spending like 2-5 hours on a song. I don't think those people need more then 2 weeks time. The people who spend far more time are just going to have to budget their time better. The pay off for more time investment tends to be a better song, but if not everyone's using it, I see no reason to extend 2 weeks.

Another vote: is the bonus round necessary?

No reason to have a competition within a competition. Participating in the NAGDM is already something extra, no reason to dilute it. I agree it would make the competition lose momentum.

It'll take a while to pick out 32 songs, but then there's more of a chance that the competitors will be experienced artists and the competition will be more gripping and intense. We could also start sending PMs to people, spreading the word about the competition.

Just make sure the selection process isn't an absurd amount of work on your guys behalf because then just getting in will turn into a competition itself.

Well, the winner would get 64 reviews in all if we do this, not 32, so it does make a difference in the end :P.

There is no power held over us to force us to write reviews to the winner. Asking people to do 2 will be more likely to turn people away from doing them in the first place. IE: 1 is fine, its more likely to happen.

Also I would like to reiterate that the winner of a NGADM should be required to judge the next competition. It is a win scenario in every way you look at it really.

Complete agreement. If they are unable to judge, runner up could do so if they want.

[eatmeatleet]

i dont have many reviews but I would also prefer some different prize

[SessileNomad]

At 2/21/10 05:28 PM, eatmeatleet wrote: i dont have many reviews but I would also prefer some different prize

free 5's and reviews are pretty much all we can offer to the winner

unless the judges wanna fork up some cash

[nightsurfermusic]

Artists who would join this competition really need to be on an honor system; there's no guaranteeing that they wont work on a song before the next phase starts.

I also like the idea of a bonus round of sorts, something really special and crazy that puts an artist way out of their comfort zone. Like, take a hardcore techno artist and make him/her do a carnival theme song or something. :P

[InvisibleObserver]

At 2/21/10 06:51 PM, Kaizerwolf wrote: I also like the idea of a bonus round of sorts, something really special and crazy that puts an artist way out of their comfort zone. Like, take a hardcore techno artist and make him/her do a carnival theme song or something. :P

Though that frankly works better as a stand alone competition or challenge.

[SessileNomad]

At 2/21/10 06:51 PM, Kaizerwolf wrote: Artists who would join this competition really need to be on an honor system; there's no guaranteeing that they wont work on a song before the next phase starts.

how the hell would an honor system work?

[Gravey]

At 2/21/10 06:54 PM, SessileNomad wrote:

At 2/21/10 06:51 PM, Kaizerwolf wrote: Artists who would join this competition really need to be on an honor system; there's no guaranteeing that they wont work on a song before the next phase starts.

how the hell would an honor system work?

Are you really that dense?

The competition for the most part has worked very well. I think for the most part it should stay the same, and the honor system is a good one. But even at that, if someone finished their round one song I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to start their round two song. It's just a perk of working fast and efficiently.

Thus an honor system wouldn't really be necessary because to be honest there shouldn't be anything wrong with someone starting on their second round song if their first one is already posted.

Everyone seems to be so worried about the two week time period one can compose in. I think its a bit less relevant than many of you tend to believe. It just seems to me some people are trying to fix a system that isn't broken.

[ErikMcClure]

At 2/21/10 03:35 PM, Gravey wrote: The winner of the NGADM should be required to be a judge during the next comp. Because obviously that person understands music and would be able to bring that knowledge to the table. Also it would prevent one person in winning it over and over again. Also, it would provide for a judge the next time without having to even search for anyone.

What if, by some hilarious circumstances, I end up winning the whole thing? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want me being a judge :P

[Gravey]

What if, by some hilarious circumstances, I end up winning the whole thing? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want me being a judge :P

Well the argument behind my idea would be that whoever wins the competition obviously has some sort of knowledge of music. And also would be able to overlook their own personal biases and judge fairly. Especially considering they obviously got a fair shake during the previous competition. So it would just be unlikely that someone would leave ignorant/useless/abusive reviews if they in said position as a judge.

But as you point out you have already proven you are a horrible competition judge. So I guess no system is full-proof. But besides that I still stand by my argument. Just because there is one bad apple in the group doesn't mean you have to go and throw out the whole barrel.

I guess what we could do is say the winner is required to be a judge next time this competition comes around. Unless it is Blackhole12, then he has to find three people to replace him for being a douche the first time he was a judge.

Yes, that seems perfectly fair to me.

[ErikMcClure]

At 2/21/10 10:51 PM, Gravey wrote: But as you point out you have already proven you are a horrible competition judge. So I guess no system is full-proof. But besides that I still stand by my argument. Just because there is one bad apple in the group doesn't mean you have to go and throw out the whole barrel.

I guess what we could do is say the winner is required to be a judge next time this competition comes around. Unless it is Blackhole12, then he has to find three people to replace him for being a douche the first time he was a judge.

I get my own exclusion rule! Awesome! However, I do not have time to find 3 people to replace me, so I simply won't judge the compo, since I wouldn't have enough time to do so anyway, nor have time to participate in another one. Its hard to hold someone to terms like "YOU HAVE TO BE A JUDGE FOR A COMPETITION IN ONE YEAR >C" because they probably don't know what they'll be doing in a year and furthermore they did not agree to those terms when they entered the competition, so they are not binding. The most you can do is ask them to judge. Time constraints are always a factor here.

... But it'd be so deliciously ironic if I did win :D

[Step]

At 2/21/10 05:27 PM, InvisibleObserver wrote: Majority of people on this site fall into a zone of spending like 2-5 hours on a song. I don't think those people need more then 2 weeks time. The people who spend far more time are just going to have to budget their time better. The pay off for more time investment tends to be a better song, but if not everyone's using it, I see no reason to extend 2 weeks.

Alright, if anyone disagrees with keeping 2 weeks, please say so. If not, 2 weeks it is then.

Another vote: is the bonus round necessary?

No reason to have a competition within a competition. Participating in the NAGDM is already something extra, no reason to dilute it. I agree it would make the competition lose momentum.

So far we have 2 against a bonus round and 1 agreeing with having a bonus round. Anyone else who (doesn't) want a bonus round?

It'll take a while to pick out 32 songs, but then there's more of a chance that the competitors will be experienced artists and the competition will be more gripping and intense. We could also start sending PMs to people, spreading the word about the competition.

Just make sure the selection process isn't an absurd amount of work on your guys behalf because then just getting in will turn into a competition itself.

Yeah, we won't accept more than, say, 60?

Well, the winner would get 64 reviews in all if we do this, not 32, so it does make a difference in the end :P.

There is no power held over us to force us to write reviews to the winner. Asking people to do 2 will be more likely to turn people away from doing them in the first place. IE: 1 is fine, its more likely to happen.

Yes, but next time we'll make it clear that if they are going to join the competition, they are also promising that they will review if they lose. So, in other words, you can't join with the intention of not reviewing. Any annoyances who don't want to review at the end can be mocked and hated :P.

But yeah, maybe 2 is a bit much. Who agrees with 2 and who agrees with 1?

Also I would like to reiterate that the winner of a NGADM should be required to judge the next competition. It is a win scenario in every way you look at it really.

Complete agreement. If they are unable to judge, runner up could do so if they want.

You and Gravey agree with each other a lot :P. Well OK, a runner up will judge if the winner is unable to, sounds fair to me.

At 2/21/10 05:28 PM, eatmeatleet wrote: i dont have many reviews but I would also prefer some different prize

This is why we're giving out sigs as well. Not the most exciting of prizes, but better than just reviews. If anyone has any other suggestions, we'll be glad to consider them.

At 2/21/10 05:31 PM, SessileNomad wrote: unless the judges wanna fork up some cash

Dream on :P.

At 2/21/10 06:51 PM, Kaizerwolf wrote: Artists who would join this competition really need to be on an honor system; there's no guaranteeing that they wont work on a song before the next phase starts.

I also like the idea of a bonus round of sorts, something really special and crazy that puts an artist way out of their comfort zone. Like, take a hardcore techno artist and make him/her do a carnival theme song or something. :P

To be honest, one of my ideas was like to have a bonus round where people are forced to make Scottish music, with the bagpipes, flute and everything :P.

At 2/21/10 07:35 PM, Gravey wrote: Thus an honor system wouldn't really be necessary because to be honest there shouldn't be anything wrong with someone starting on their second round song if their first one is already posted.

Yeah, and as you said, if you work too quickly, you won't end up with a good enough song, so I personally agree with sticking to 2 weeks. Although it's up to the participants, really. If anyone wants more time, just say and we'll continue asking for votes.

At 2/21/10 10:15 PM, Blackhole12 wrote: What if, by some hilarious circumstances, I end up winning the whole thing? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want me being a judge :P

Lol xD.

--

By the way, LogicalDefiance sent me a PM offering his services to judge for the 2010 DM. Combined with Kaizerwolf, Darklight and I, we now have 4 judges. I'm about to ask SBB if he wants to judge for next year too. If not, how many more judges do you think we should get? I personally think 5 is ideal. After all, the more judges, the more accurate the score will be.
But it's up to you guys. Is 4 enough, or should we aim for 5?

[Gravey]

By the way, LogicalDefiance sent me a PM offering his services to judge for the 2010 DM. Combined with Kaizerwolf, Darklight and I, we now have 4 judges. I'm about to ask SBB if he wants to judge for next year too. If not, how many more judges do you think we should get? I personally think 5 is ideal. After all, the more judges, the more accurate the score will be.
But it's up to you guys. Is 4 enough, or should we aim for 5?

The more the better. If twenty people pm'd you asking to judge then I would say let all of them who have shown intelligence in their reviews of music in the past. I know we won't get 20, but I'm just saying that the more the better. But just make sure they are making valid and intelligent remarks in their reviews when judging the music.

[ErikMcClure]

At 2/22/10 02:18 PM, Gravey wrote: But just make sure they are making valid and intelligent remarks in their reviews when judging the music.

:D

[Pure-Metal-UTA]

At 2/21/10 10:48 AM, Supersteph54 wrote: * More judges, as you already know. We're planning to go for around 5. Darklight17 and I will be the judges as usual, I don't know if SBB is willing to judge for the NGADM 2010 as well, and we'll be needing a few more judges. We're looking for people who have good knowledge in music. People who know how to judge, i.e.: they don't give a lower score to a song because it has a bad name or because it's a genre that they don't like, for example. We need harsh judges, people who can point out the problems and suggest how to fix them without beating around the bush. Just something to point out: harsh does not mean you give low scores automatically, and you never give out 10's unless the song is made by a music god. Harsh means you simply say what the problems are and say what the good things are, and you don't beat around the bush or not mention some problems because you think that it might offend the author. We don't want one-liners for reviews, and we don't need essays either (*Blush* :P), so if you're a judge, you'll have to find a way to write an organised, well-written, helpful and not-so-small/large review So yeah, anyone who's willing to judge can PM me and I'll fill him/her in with the details :).

Well my spectrum of listenable music has really spread for me since I entered the competition (and lost) I would be up to being a judge and I could give a very fair score for the contestants.

* We're thinking of giving more time to the competitors, but we're not too sure. Was 2 weeks enough? If not, what's the ideal time?

2 weeks should be good, however, people do have lives, so maybe give it an extra week?

* We might add this thing called a 'bonus round' which happens after around Round 3 or something. All of the competitors so far will be given a random task, such as, remix a particular song, make a song in a particular genre which is rarely made on NG, make a song in one of your opponent's genres, make a song which evokes a particular mood, make a song completely out of presets that come with your DAW, make a song out of percussion instruments, etc. The losers won't be excluded from the competition, but the winners get something such as 3 extra points in their Round 4 total, for example. Any suggestions for prizes, and more importantly, is a 'bonus round' a fun idea, or just a waste of time?

Sounds like a fun idea, I'd go with it!

* We're possibly going to make auditions. We'll make a seperate thread where people post their best song. Once 32 people post their best song, a deadline is determined and people can continue posting their best song until that deadline is reached. So, for example, 32 people post their best song in the thread on, say, the 15th September. Then, the deadline would be, say, the 25th of September. Another 20 people post their best song, making a total of 52 people. Then, we choose the best 32 out of those 52 people based on their best song and those 32 are the people to take part. Is it really necessary, or would it be unfair?

I'd say that that would be unfair, Just leave the competition as it is so that everyone has a fair chance at winning or losing.

* There's a chance we'll make the judging periods more flexible. For example, in Round 1, where 32 people will take part, we'll make the judging period 5 days, then in Round 2 it will be 4 days, Round 3 is 3 days, Round 4 is 2 and Round 5 is 1 day. This is because with the addition of more judges, it could be harder to push all of them to finishing so many songs in only 2 days, so just in case one of the judges can't review everything in only two days, at least there would be more than 2 days depending on the number of songs, which should be enough time. Is it OK if you wait for this long?

I'm good for that (assuming that I become a judge)

* We might improve the prize to the losers having to review 2 of the winner's songs instead of 1. Is it too much, or too little? If so, what's the best amount?

Too little, I would say 3-5 of the artist's least reviewed songs, that way they get a review and good critiques on the songs they may need reviewing on.

* This idea needs your opinions: should we make it that every competitor must post 5 genres he might make and each round, one of those 5 would be randomly picked for him to make a song out of, or is it useless? This is becuase we're trying to keep the deadlines fixed, instead of some people who may finish earlier having more time to make a song than the people who take more time to do a song. Should we do this?

I would disagree with the randomly choosing, because say I entered the competition, I mainly only do metal, if I were assigned to do a techno song, I'd be completely fucked because I have no VSTs for that.

* Obviously, the first post of the competition will be more organised, with more warnings saying that if a competitor doesn't think s/he can make a song in the time-restrictions of the competition, then s/he needn't apply, and we'll update the first post with any suggestions/rules you all come up with and with any of the above ideas you agree with.

Definately, make the rules crystal clear so that people get the point immediately.

Hope I helped, and really hoping to be a judge.

[Step]

At 2/23/10 02:24 AM, Pure-Metal-UTA wrote:

At 2/21/10 10:48 AM, Supersteph54 wrote: * More judges, as you already know. We're planning to go for around 5. Darklight17 and I will be the judges as usual, I don't know if SBB is willing to judge for the NGADM 2010 as well, and we'll be needing a few more judges. We're looking for people who have good knowledge in music. People who know how to judge, i.e.: they don't give a lower score to a song because it has a bad name or because it's a genre that they don't like, for example. We need harsh judges, people who can point out the problems and suggest how to fix them without beating around the bush. Just something to point out: harsh does not mean you give low scores automatically, and you never give out 10's unless the song is made by a music god. Harsh means you simply say what the problems are and say what the good things are, and you don't beat around the bush or not mention some problems because you think that it might offend the author. We don't want one-liners for reviews, and we don't need essays either (*Blush* :P), so if you're a judge, you'll have to find a way to write an organised, well-written, helpful and not-so-small/large review So yeah, anyone who's willing to judge can PM me and I'll fill him/her in with the details :).

Well my spectrum of listenable music has really spread for me since I entered the competition (and lost) I would be up to being a judge and I could give a very fair score for the contestants.

You were a good contestant, so it's a little sad to see you as a judge instead of taking part (yeah you lost in the first round, but as you saw I was the only judge who actually reviewed your song as a Death Metal song, not as a bunch of crazy drums and powerful guitar along with grunting, since those are all what Death Metal's about...). But still, I'm sure you'll make an awesome judge. I sent you a PM :3.

* We're thinking of giving more time to the competitors, but we're not too sure. Was 2 weeks enough? If not, what's the ideal time?

2 weeks should be good, however, people do have lives, so maybe give it an extra week?

But as the people above said, it only takes like 5 hours max to make a decent song, and 5 hours from a total of 24 x 14 hours isn't too much. What we can do is give some leniency to the people who sincerely had their RL getting in the way of making a song, so if someone didn't have time because they had, say, exams or loads of work to do, etc, they'll be given a bit more time and their results will come seperately.

* We might add this thing called a 'bonus round' which happens after around Round 3 or something. All of the competitors so far will be given a random task, such as, remix a particular song, make a song in a particular genre which is rarely made on NG, make a song in one of your opponent's genres, make a song which evokes a particular mood, make a song completely out of presets that come with your DAW, make a song out of percussion instruments, etc. The losers won't be excluded from the competition, but the winners get something such as 3 extra points in their Round 4 total, for example. Any suggestions for prizes, and more importantly, is a 'bonus round' a fun idea, or just a waste of time?

Sounds like a fun idea, I'd go with it!

So it makes two in favour of this idea and two against. How about this: the next person who gives his opinion about the idea will determine the fate of this idea. If s/he agrees with it, we'll have a small bonus round after Round 3, and if s/he disagrees with it, then there will be no bonus round. Then, if it does indeed be added to the competition and ends up being a failure, we can make sure we don't do it next time...

* We're possibly going to make auditions. We'll make a seperate thread where people post their best song. Once 32 people post their best song, a deadline is determined and people can continue posting their best song until that deadline is reached. So, for example, 32 people post their best song in the thread on, say, the 15th September. Then, the deadline would be, say, the 25th of September. Another 20 people post their best song, making a total of 52 people. Then, we choose the best 32 out of those 52 people based on their best song and those 32 are the people to take part. Is it really necessary, or would it be unfair?

I'd say that that would be unfair, Just leave the competition as it is so that everyone has a fair chance at winning or losing.

Which makes 2 votes in favour of this idea and 1 against this idea...

* There's a chance we'll make the judging periods more flexible. For example, in Round 1, where 32 people will take part, we'll make the judging period 5 days, then in Round 2 it will be 4 days, Round 3 is 3 days, Round 4 is 2 and Round 5 is 1 day. This is because with the addition of more judges, it could be harder to push all of them to finishing so many songs in only 2 days, so just in case one of the judges can't review everything in only two days, at least there would be more than 2 days depending on the number of songs, which should be enough time. Is it OK if you wait for this long?

I'm good for that (assuming that I become a judge)

Yeah, we'll probably go for this idea.

* We might improve the prize to the losers having to review 2 of the winner's songs instead of 1. Is it too much, or too little? If so, what's the best amount?

Too little, I would say 3-5 of the artist's least reviewed songs, that way they get a review and good critiques on the songs they may need reviewing on.

Wow, five reviews per loser means 160 reviews as a prize to the winner lol xP. I don't know about this, we should try and find a fixed number of reviews as a prize. After all, most of the people who would take part in this would probably write only one-liners as reviews since that's what they're used to, and writing a sentence only takes a few seconds, but on the other hand, for the people who prefer writing long reviews, more than 1 review might put them off... Any opinions?

* This idea needs your opinions: should we make it that every competitor must post 5 genres he might make and each round, one of those 5 would be randomly picked for him to make a song out of, or is it useless? This is becuase we're trying to keep the deadlines fixed, instead of some people who may finish earlier having more time to make a song than the people who take more time to do a song. Should we do this?

I would disagree with the randomly choosing, because say I entered the competition, I mainly only do metal, if I were assigned to do a techno song, I'd be completely fucked because I have no VSTs for that.

Yeah, it's a fail idea, it's true :(.

* Obviously, the first post of the competition will be more organised, with more warnings saying that if a competitor doesn't think s/he can make a song in the time-restrictions of the competition, then s/he needn't apply, and we'll update the first post with any suggestions/rules you all come up with and with any of the above ideas you agree with.

Definately, make the rules crystal clear so that people get the point immediately.

Yep ^^.

Hope I helped, and really hoping to be a judge.

Thanks for sharing your opinion ^^.

[FairSquare]

At 2/23/10 08:23 AM, Supersteph54 wrote: So it makes two in favour of this idea and two against. How about this: the next person who gives his opinion about the idea will determine the fate of this idea. If s/he agrees with it, we'll have a small bonus round after Round 3, and if s/he disagrees with it, then there will be no bonus round. Then, if it does indeed be added to the competition and ends up being a failure, we can make sure we don't do it next time...

I disagree with this idea. This deathmatch is already a competition and there's not really a need for a competition within a competition. That and that it distracts from the actual competition. Ofcourse, you don't have to participate, but if your opponent does you are already 3/4 points behind.

[Step]

At 2/23/10 08:36 AM, MH16 wrote:

At 2/23/10 08:23 AM, Supersteph54 wrote: So it makes two in favour of this idea and two against. How about this: the next person who gives his opinion about the idea will determine the fate of this idea. If s/he agrees with it, we'll have a small bonus round after Round 3, and if s/he disagrees with it, then there will be no bonus round. Then, if it does indeed be added to the competition and ends up being a failure, we can make sure we don't do it next time...

I disagree with this idea. This deathmatch is already a competition and there's not really a need for a competition within a competition. That and that it distracts from the actual competition. Ofcourse, you don't have to participate, but if your opponent does you are already 3/4 points behind.

Alright, it's official. No bonus round.

Next we need to know if people agree with the 2 weeks, if people agree with auditions and if people agree with more flexible judging periods.

[Decibel]

At 2/21/10 10:48 AM, Supersteph54 wrote: Many of you have heard of the NG Audio Deathmatch competition that is currently going on. It's quite a large success, and Darklight17 and I are planning on making one annually (till, of course, 2012 :P). Since I thought it's better now than later, here's a thread for ideas and suggestions that we can use for the NGADM 2010 (which will be held towards the end of summer) and we'll also be needing more judges too. Here are our ideas so far:

* More judges, as you already know. We're planning to go for around 5. Darklight17 and I will be the judges as usual, I don't know if SBB is willing to judge for the NGADM 2010 as well, and we'll be needing a few more judges. We're looking for people who have good knowledge in music. People who know how to judge, i.e.: they don't give a lower score to a song because it has a bad name or because it's a genre that they don't like, for example. We need harsh judges, people who can point out the problems and suggest how to fix them without beating around the bush. Just something to point out: harsh does not mean you give low scores automatically, and you never give out 10's unless the song is made by a music god. Harsh means you simply say what the problems are and say what the good things are, and you don't beat around the bush or not mention some problems because you think that it might offend the author. We don't want one-liners for reviews, and we don't need essays either (*Blush* :P), so if you're a judge, you'll have to find a way to write an organised, well-written, helpful and not-so-small/large review So yeah, anyone who's willing to judge can PM me and I'll fill him/her in with the details :).

Smashing Idea! With the success of last year's Audio Deathmatch, I'm totally sure this year's contest will be nothing less, More even, I love the idea of more judges, not that last year's judges weren't good but The more the merrier, as they say.
A suggestion could be getting a particular judge for each genre i.e. Supersteph54= Classical, Darkligh17= Trance or Sumfin' like that, And then judges compare to see which one rules on top of them all!

Just a suggestion to Help
Yours Musically,
<Deejay>

[Echo]

At 3/2/10 02:52 AM, borntodj167 wrote:
Smashing Idea! With the success of last year's Audio Deathmatch, I'm totally sure this year's contest will be nothing less, More even, I love the idea of more judges, not that last year's judges weren't good but The more the merrier, as they say.
A suggestion could be getting a particular judge for each genre i.e. Supersteph54= Classical, Darkligh17= Trance or Sumfin' like that, And then judges compare to see which one rules on top of them all!

Just a suggestion to Help
Yours Musically,
<Deejay>

Nah dont really like restricting myself to just one particulary type of music. Also, i dont think we need anymore than 5 judges as that would result in less people actually joining the NGADM 2010.

Darklight17

[Gravey]

Also, i dont think we need anymore than 5 judges as that would result in less people actually joining the NGADM 2010.

Darklight17

Having more judges means that there are less likely to be ties. Also it means that one judge won't single handedly have the power to kill a song in a contest. Right now if one judge gives a song a 5 or 6 that song is screwed and won't have a chance to the next round. The more judges the more balance there is.

Also with more judges it means if one judge isn't doing his/her job then the contest can continue. Unlike this contest the first time around where we had to wait weeks for you to do your job. If we have 8-9 judges then a loafer can simply be kicked off the judges list and we could continue on with the competition. Rather than have to sit around and wait for them to "get around" to listening and judging the music.

The more judges the better. Period.

[InvisibleObserver]

At 3/7/10 02:36 PM, Gravey wrote:

The more judges the better. Period.

To an extent, I think the key is leniency/flexibility. Perhaps have a minimum of 3 judges, but the more the better, so long as per round all songs are judged by the same number of judges. That way the judging field per round is fair, but if someone is unable to be a 5th judge for a round, they just skip that round and the other 4 proceed.

[BrokenDeck]

I'd just like to say that I'll volunteer to be a judge.

[SessileNomad]

At 3/8/10 08:45 PM, brokendeck wrote: I'd just like to say that I'll volunteer to be a judge.

same

[Step]

At 3/8/10 08:54 PM, SessileNomad wrote:

At 3/8/10 08:45 PM, brokendeck wrote: I'd just like to say that I'll volunteer to be a judge.

same

Aww man, you're such a good competitor!

Well, that makes a total of 8 judges, and I think we can stop here. The more judges the better, but it'll be hard to handle more than 8 judges, so I think 8'll be the end of it. I know SessileNomad knows a lot about music but @brokendeck, is it OK if you send me a PM stating any musical experience you have?

--

Also, a question: do you guys prefer if we send you a PM saying the round is over, or if we post our NGADM reviews on your songs like Darklight's doing?