Blindfold Test length

[jeffcrom]

In my response to Thom Keith's excellent current Blindfold Test, I again made reference to my preference that a BFT should not be longer than a CD. Every time I say something like this, I feel like the elementary school hall monitor whom nobody likes. So I want to see if there is a consensus on this.

Background: I'm the BFT manager and have been for about two years. I got the job by volunteering, and nobody objected. Before I took over, there was a thread (here) that included some discussion of limited the BFT to 80 minutes. In my memory, a consensus was reached that such a limit was a good idea, but reading back over the thread, I see that there really wasn't a consensus.

My personal preference is that the BFT be limited to 80 minutes. But I don't want to dictate to the group. So if you are interested in the Blindfold Test at all, please answer the questions above. The answers to the first two will be very helpful to me, and I'm curious about the third. Feel free to vote even if you're not a regular BFT participant.

Whatever the consensus is, I'm not particularly inclined to try to "enforce" it, even if there was some mechanism to do so. But I'd like to know what the consensus is, so that I can continue to provide gentle reminders or shut up about it.

And please use this thread to make any suggestions about the BFT and how it is run. And that includes changing "managers"!

Edited August 20, 2012 by jeffcrom

[tkeith]

I'm totally behind limiting it to one disc. I'm also totally guilty of going over that on just about every test I've done. On this one, I thought of putting the excess on a "bonus disc". That's pushing it, but it's something I'd be okay with. In truth, a more steadfast limit would help me to limit the length of the BFT. Yes, this makes me a complete hypocrite, but I think it would strengthen the BFTs to limit them to one disc.

[colinmce]

I steadfastly believe in limiting the length of mix tapes. When I make a tape of non-jazz music with a 90 min cassette I think in two 45 min blocs. When I make a nonjazz mix CD I try to stay around 60 minutes, or 12-15 songs Jazz, of course, tends to go on longer so I think 70-80 minutes is about ideal. If you're dealing in pre-LP era jazz, I say stick to track limits: 15 or so. As per the poll I do get weary after a certain length or certain number of cuts.

[Hot Ptah]

I think that there should be no limit to the length of the BFTs. I don't think anyone has ever tried to go over 2 CDs worth of time, so that is the upper limit we are realistically talking about.

I know that in compiling a BFT, I have certain songs I just HAVE to include, either because they are such historical curiosities, or because I think everyone will enjoy them, or because they will shock everyone, or for a number of other reasons. Sometimes I have confined the BFT to one disc, sometimes I have spilled over a little. What I have found is that often the listeners are the most enthusiastic about the tracks which I would have excluded if I had been forced to cut the BFT to one disc in length. It can be very unpredictable what the listeners will enjoy.

I find that on many BFTs, I don't really like to listen to certain songs that much, and often those are the longest songs. I have no desire to hear them more than once or twice, although they may be academically interesting on some level. So with a one disc BFT, I am left as a listener with not that many songs to replay and enjoy. Sometimes I wish there were more songs.

To me this is kind of like cutting the Beatles' White Album to one LP. Everyone has a much different idea about what songs should be cut, and the very songs you might love the most, are the ones which I would clearly cut. It can be hard to decide what to leave off of a BFT which is slightly more than one disc long.

Edited August 21, 2012 by Hot Ptah

[tkeith]

I understand that point, Bill, but I've actually started to compile a list of songs in advance for my "next" BFT. I find that, in doing that, I don't lose out on those songs. I've bumped some of those tunes (one for the past 3 BFTs I've authored), but they're still on the list. I mean, I would have had a hard time lopping any of the tunes I put into #101 off the list, but had I been held to that standard, I could have done it. It's a double-edge sword. I imagine if I could retire tomorrow, I'd change my stance, but time is really a struggle for anything more than one disc for me... and yes, I'm a total hypocrite.

[seeline]

I think that a time limit is a very good idea, and that all those "extra" tunes can be listed and set aside for later use.

I guess I'm still thinking in cassette mixtape terms, but I think that time limitations can be very helpful.

[jeffcrom]

Bump. I'd love to get more input, both in terms of votes in the poll and in posts.

[Jim R]

I've participated on and off since the beginning in 2003. I've re-read the 2009 thread linked above, in which I participated, and I've read this thread, and I still don't understand the need for a limit. If the compiler wants to include 2 CD's worth of music, that doesn't mean that everybody has to comment on (or even listen to) every track. If you look at the reality of what occurs on many (I'd say most) tests, there are always several people who sign up and don't even participate, and usually a few who don't comment on every track. There is no consequence for people who do this, and of course there needn't be. There are no requirements of any kind in terms of the extent to which someone listens or comments. There may be a guilt factor for those who request hard copies of 2 CD's and then fail to participate, but that's no reason to limit the amount of music the compiler wishes to include, imo. The bottom line for me is... what's the harm in making the test longer? People are completely free to participate to the extent they wish to, and that's how it's always been. When you can simply download the music or go to a stream on the web, the "responsibility" in terms of participating becomes even more flexible, the way I see it. 2 CD's worth of music will appeal to some, and for those who don't have the time or interest for that much music, hey- there's (still) no obligation to address all (or any) of it.

[Jim R]

And by the way, I'm not suggesting that signing up and not participating should be encouraged. I'm simply saying that it happens frequently, and participation on a limited scale (commenting on only a few selected tracks) is very common. For the record, I've always participated fully when I've signed up- even burning a minidisc of one test and taking that with me on our trip to Tahiti. I'll skip a track now and then, if it's beyond my scope, but I'll say so. I'm simply stating my view of the way things generally go, and wondering what harm there is in having no limit to the length of a test. For me, it's a question of logic. I really have no ax to grind.

Edited August 22, 2012 by Jim R

[Jim R]

My personal preference is that the BFT be limited to 80 minutes.

I don't see where you indicated why this is your preference, and I'd be curious to know.

I understand that point, Bill, but I've actually started to compile a list of songs in advance for my "next" BFT. I find that, in doing that, I don't lose out on those songs. I've bumped some of those tunes (one for the past 3 BFTs I've authored), but they're still on the list. I mean, I would have had a hard time lopping any of the tunes I put into #101 off the list, but had I been held to that standard, I could have done it. It's a double-edge sword. I imagine if I could retire tomorrow, I'd change my stance, but time is really a struggle for anything more than one disc for me... and yes, I'm a total hypocrite.

I think you're addressing a slightly different point. If the question was whether you were required to include 2 CD's worth, then I could understand why you would be making these comments. But that's not the question. Obviously, you and everyone else is free to limit your test to 80 minutes (or less) when your turn rolls around... right? The question is, should everyone be limited to 80 minutes or less, and if they are allowed to make it 160 minutes, will that really cause you or anyone else any problems when you're not obligated to: a) sign up at all; b) participate, if you've signed up; and c) comment on every bit of the music if indeed you opt to participate?

Edited August 22, 2012 by Jim R

[tkeith]

My personal preference is that the BFT be limited to 80 minutes.

I don't see where you indicated why this is your preference, and I'd be curious to know.

I understand that point, Bill, but I've actually started to compile a list of songs in advance for my "next" BFT. I find that, in doing that, I don't lose out on those songs. I've bumped some of those tunes (one for the past 3 BFTs I've authored), but they're still on the list. I mean, I would have had a hard time lopping any of the tunes I put into #101 off the list, but had I been held to that standard, I could have done it. It's a double-edge sword. I imagine if I could retire tomorrow, I'd change my stance, but time is really a struggle for anything more than one disc for me... and yes, I'm a total hypocrite.

I think you're addressing a slightly different point. If the question was whether you were required to include 2 CD's worth, then I could understand why you would be making these comments. But that's not the question. Obviously, you and everyone else is free to limit your test to 80 minutes (or less) when your turn rolls around... right? The question is, should everyone be limited to 80 minutes or less, and if they are allowed to make it 160 minutes, will that really cause you or anyone else any problems when you're not obligated to: a) sign up at all; b) participate, if you've signed up; and c) comment on every bit of the music if indeed you opt to participate?

Jim, this was discussed in the old thread. I get your point, I just don't agree with it. It's a matter of wanting to honor the effort of the compiler. Starting today, I'm going to have negative time for about the next six weeks. I'm planning to participate in the next BFT. Listing to 75-80 minutes of music is something I might be able to do, splitting it into 3-4 listens and making comments. Now, double that to 3 hours and it's a burden, which the BFT shouldn't be. You're correct, I'm imposing that burden on myself, but I think most people would agree that a spare 75 minutes is easier to come up with than a spare 2-1/2 hours. There are no axes being ground here, it's just a discussion.

Another way to look at it is this: Think of music in the day of the LP. You listened for 20 minutes, went to the john, got a sandwich, came back and listened to the other 20 minutes, and most of the music was high quality (in my collection, anyway). With the advent of the CD, musicians/producers felt the need to fill 60-80 minutes of space and, to my ear, the music has suffered. It's also more taxing to listen to that duration of music with no breaks. Yes, there may be 60 minutes of worthwhile material (hey, we've all enjoyed those unreleased and alternate take Blue Note tracks), when it was restricted to 45, the music released was consistently the best of the best. I would submit that the same is true for a BFT. I could have omitted Track 8, and perhaps Track 9 and the BFT would not have suffered. But again, it's all about preference.

One other way to look at it: There have been some BFTs that I just don't take to (the Big Al felt about mine ). It's easier to plod through 80 minutes of music that is not my bag than it is to plod through 160. But now we're back to the desire to honor the compiler, and there we'll have to agree to disagree.

[jeffcrom]

My personal preference is that the BFT be limited to 80 minutes.

I don't see where you indicated why this is your preference, and I'd be curious to know.

Because, to me, that's the point where it starts to turn from a fun activity into a chore.

And yes, I can stop listening at the 80-minute point. That's what I've done with several BFTs that went beyond a CD's length. But in those cases I have felt that the experience has been degraded, however slightly. I feel some slight exasperation with the amount of music I have been presented, and the compiler seems disappointed that I haven't listened to the whole thing. It has become slightly less fun for me and the compiler.

Here's a possibly stupid analogy: There's a party with lots of food. The host insists of piling too much food on everyone's plates. No, the guests don't have to eat it all, but an element of awkwardness has been introduced. The guests have to decide how much they can leave on their plates without offending the host. They're probably going to feel some obligation to eat more than they really want to, and the host is now probably going to be end up being slightly offended that they didn't eat it all.

[NIS]

I voted for a limited BFT. Maybe I just have a shorter attention span than most. Also, even though I'm a retired person, I still don't find time to listen to as much music as I would like.

When I sign up for a BFT, I actually do feel obligated to listen to it all. Someone put in time and effort to give it to me. And I do feel an obligation to make some kind of comment or at least a thank you. I have failed at that and I'm sorry to anyone I've slighted. I don't have alot of comments because quite honestly, I'm not all that knowledgeable about music. I just like to listen to new things.

On the presenter side, I thought there was a one CD limit already. Part of the fun for me was trying different combinations to come up with something that met the parameters. As it was, I think a good share of the listeners thought I should have been limited to 20 minutes. :

[BillF]

Next month's BFT is a brilliant 65 mins BTW.

[Jim R]

But now we're back to the desire to honor the compiler, and there we'll have to agree to disagree.

If you read my posts carefully, it should be clear that I personally believe in honoring the compiler. Pretty strongly, actually, in terms of how I conduct my own participation. I just don't think it's realistic to be very concerned about that in terms of setting up the rules. The reality is, compilers are never really honored as they should be. Over time, I've gotten used to this as a fact of BFT life, and to me it's become clear that the whole thing has to be accepted as a loose, informal exercise where freedom (to participate or not, to comment or not) rules. Again, all I'm saying is that if someone wants to include 2 CD's worth of material (and it's been done many times), I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do so. Anyone who has followed this exercise for any length of time ought to realize that they're not going to see full participation*. For folks like yourself, there's no reason you couldn't announce when you sign up (as has been done before also) that you only want disc one (or disc two, or whatever).

*When I compiled my test in 2003, there were ten or twelve people who signed up and received a CDR in the mail, but didn't participate at all in the discussion. The most recent test I participated in (#100) consisted of 14 tracks, which I believe amounted to one disc. Twelve people signed up. Only eight of those people participated, and only six of them commented on every one of the 14 tracks. The other two participants commented on two or three of the 14 tracks. This is absolutely typical from what I've seen over the past 9 years.

When I came back and read my posts this morning, I wondered if my "tone" appeared aggressive or even mildly hostile. If so, I apoligize. I really am only looking at this as an exercise in logic, and to me it seems rather pointless to apply such limitations to the freedom of the compilers.

[JSngry]

Starting today, I'm going to have negative time for about the next six weeks.

...whoa...dude...

[Jim R]

My personal preference is that the BFT be limited to 80 minutes.

I don't see where you indicated why this is your preference, and I'd be curious to know.

Because, to me, that's the point where it starts to turn from a fun activity into a chore.

And yes, I can stop listening at the 80-minute point. That's what I've done with several BFTs that went beyond a CD's length. But in those cases I have felt that the experience has been degraded, however slightly. I feel some slight exasperation with the amount of music I have been presented, and the compiler seems disappointed that I haven't listened to the whole thing. It has become slightly less fun for me and the compiler.

Here's a possibly stupid analogy: There's a party with lots of food. The host insists of piling too much food on everyone's plates. No, the guests don't have to eat it all, but an element of awkwardness has been introduced. The guests have to decide how much they can leave on their plates without offending the host. They're probably going to feel some obligation to eat more than they really want to, and the host is now probably going to be end up being slightly offended that they didn't eat it all.

Thanks for elaborating, Jeff. Frankly, I think you (and Thom, and handful of others) are the exception to the general rule that people are generally not all that dedicated to full and enthusiastic participation.

[Hot Ptah]

I agree with Jim R. If the compiler wants to present 2 CDs of material, few people are going to provide detailed comments on every track anyway. If the compiler does not care, what is the harm?

I am one that does not comment on every track. I only comment when I think I have something interesting to say. I don't see the point in writing, "Don't have a clue, not even a wild guess. It's an acoustic hard bop quintet. Could be any time period from the 1950s to now." So I don't always comment. I am not upset when members do not comment on all of my tracks.

If someone wants to create a buffet with 35 items, and is not concerned if some people only try twelve of them, what is the harm in having a longer buffet? What if someone just loves items 1,2,7,25,28 and 35 from the buffet, and finds item 28 to be a life-changing experience? They would miss out if only the first 16 items could be included.

I think back to a BFT that The Magnificent Goldberg prepared. There was one CD of material, and then a bonus disc of three or four vocal cuts. Those vocal cuts were incredible to me. I still think about them and pull out his BFT and listen to the vocal cuts. If The Magnificent Goldberg had thought, oh well, I must exercise discipline and ruthlessly delete these vocal cuts, my life from that day forward would have been a little less rich, a little less enjoyable.

Edited August 22, 2012 by Hot Ptah

[jeffcrom]

Okay, I don't won't to cut off discussion if folks have more to say or still want to vote, but something tells me that we're about done. Here's what I think - see if everyone can live with this:

I think that the fact that a majority of folks voted to limit the length of the BFT ought to count for something - but not too much. Only 14 people voted, which shows that those of us who are interested in the BFT constitute a minority on a minority-interest forum. Although 10 votes out of 14 is a majority, I'm not comfortable calling that a consensus.

And although I think that the folks who want to present longer BFTs ought to take a look at the 11 out of 14 votes saying that longer BFTs reduce the listeners' interest and enthusiasm, I think that their right to have a different approach to the BFT should be respected.

So I propose that the BFT Q & A thread be amended to say:

"It is suggested that you make your BFT no longer than the length of a CD - 80 minutes. Some listeners have stated that longer BFTs may reduce their interest in participating. You may make your BFT longer if you wish, but that increases the chances that participants may not listen to every selection."

Does that reflect the will of the majority while not imposing a hard and fast rule? Can everybody live with that?

[tkeith]

I'm okay with that, Jeff.

Bill & Jim, to address the "What's the harm?" question, you have to look at what several of us have said. We feel a sense of obligation when someone has taken the time to compile a test. That means that if you send out a box set BFT, I'm going to listen to it all, that's just how I am. I'd love to hear all of that stuff, but what's the harm in spreading that out over 5 different BFTs?

[NIS]

That sounds good to me also.

Honestly, Hot Ptah and Jim R's comments were kind of winning me over. The bottom line is that I really enjoy the BFTs and am very happy to be involved. Thanks.

[Jim R]

I'm okay with that, Jeff.

Bill & Jim, to address the "What's the harm?" question, you have to look at what several of us have said. We feel a sense of obligation when someone has taken the time to compile a test. That means that if you send out a box set BFT, I'm going to listen to it all, that's just how I am. I'd love to hear all of that stuff, but what's the harm in spreading that out over 5 different BFTs?

Again, Thom, please don't suggest that I'm any different, and don't also feel obligated, and don't also honor the compiler's efforts. I thought I was pretty clear about that. I'm simply pointing out the reality, which is that compilers are going to experience plenty of responses that are less than thorough or enthusiastic, in addition to total non-responses. Our personal approaches are very unlikely to change that, imo.

2-disc tests have been done a number of times, and some people do enjoy having the opportunity to sample that amount of music. I agree that a 5-disc set would be a bit of a stretch, though.

Jeff, I think that your suggestion is sound (no pun intended).

[jeffcrom]

I agree that a 5-disc set would be a bit of a stretch, though.

Dang! I was already halfway through compiling "BFT 110 - The Complete Jeffcrom Jazz Collection," which was to consist of every record I own.

[Jim R]

I agree that a 5-disc set would be a bit of a stretch, though.

Dang! I was already halfway through compiling "BFT 110 - The Complete Jeffcrom Jazz Collection," which was to consist of every record I own.

I think I'd be up for that... but as a download only.

[webbcity]

I am late to this thread, and new to the BFTs, but Jeff, I agree that your suggestion in post #19 is a good one!