Jump to content

Please Vote! Should the Blindfold Test Be Discontinued?


Hot Ptah

Recommended Posts

I thought that while my own Blindfold Test was in process, I would raise the question of whether we want to continue having a monthly Blindfold Test or not.

At this point, we have presenters for 2016 Blindfold Tests for only three more months--April (Dan Gould), July (Thom Keith) and December (falser).

That leaves us with no 2016 presenters in May, June, August, September, October and November.

Personally, I enjoy the Blindfold Test as much as ever. But if it has run its course, and is no longer of interest, then we should discontinue it.

Please post your vote--Continue the Blindfold Test, or Discontinue the Blindfold Test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

22 minutes ago, danasgoodstuff said:

Maybe some months we could have mini-tests of just a few tunes some months, a full-scale test is a lot of work.

In the past, Jeffcrom was the administrator and suggested that all Blindfold Tests should be a maximum length of one CD. This was met with disagreement and several presenters since then have submitted longer Blindfold Tests, of a two CD length.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, danasgoodstuff said:

If people want to go long, that's fine, but there's certainly something to be said for brevity - I'd be far more likely to take an active part if it was less time consuming, even just listening and commenting to a full  CDs worth eats up a couple of hours at least.

I agree with that. One of the reasons I didn't take the last couple was because I haven't the time. But for the latest, I made time and glad I did.

But it'd be a BAD MOVE to abandon it, in my view.

MG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely keep it.  

danasgoodstuff, I know I'd be happy to participate even if someone did an "EP" length disc (just a few tunes).  It really is up to the presenter.  While I understand and agree about longer tests, ultimately, everybody participates to their ability (including schedules).  If you can only make time for a few tunes, nobody would fault that and I'm sure test-makers would be happy to have the involvement.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, tkeith said:

If you can only make time for a few tunes, nobody would fault that and I'm sure test-makers would be happy to have the involvement.

Exactly.  In fact, it's always played out this way since the beginning, to some degree.  The way the system works now logistically, it's even more convenient for people to participate in selective fashion.  I think it's great this way.  When someone mailed you a CDR, there was a greater expectation and responsibility for people to respond.  Now, even the whole sign-up tradition is kind of unnecessary.  I still like to jump in when I can, and when I find tracks that interest me, and I hope it will continue.  At any rate, if it dies, it dies.  Doesn't mean it can't come back any time, though... does it?  Why couldn't it exist sporadically?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thought is that when a regular feature goes to a sporadic status, such as Album of the Month, it tends to disappear completely.

If members are interested in seeing the Blindfold Test continue, they need to volunteer to present one. Otherwise we will have months with no Blindfold Test this year, without any formal decision having been made, simply because there is no presenter.

I really believe in limiting the length of the Blindfold Test to 80 minutes or less, the length of a CD.

I know that when I have prepared a BFT, I am very proud of every single one of my song choices, and think that each one is a stroke of genius on my part. But then I am surprised that the listeners don't seem to really like some of the songs, or to care much about them. I think that some editing would do us all good, as we put together a Blindfold Test.

Also, you can always save some of the songs for the next BFT that you put together. The next BFT seems to come upon you more quickly than you might imagine.

So in summary, I think that if we kept the Blindfold Tests to 80 minutes or less, it might make other members more likely to participate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Spontooneous said:

The idea of a length limit, say eight or ten cuts, is appealing.

I guess I still don't understand this.  What reason is there for wanting fewer tracks to listen to and analyze?  If you don't have time to listen to 14 or 16 or 20 cuts, just listen to your eight or ten.  There's no requirement that you respond to the entire list, and it's always been common for a number of people to have done that (selectively participate) anyway.  There's no shame in it.  I've been doing this more and more in the past year or so, because I'd rather jump in and comment on a few tracks in a test where there are only a few tracks that I can relate to/enjoy/understand, etc, rather than sit the whole thing out just because most of it is not to my taste.  For the people who may want to present 2 CD's worth of material, limiting them to eight or ten cuts seems completely unnecessary and maybe even unfair to them.  If somebody presented 2 CD's worth of material and most of it was ignored (which I'd say is pretty rare), then oh well, perhaps lesson learned for them (or not).  But who cares?  Where is the problem?  I hope I don't sound combative here, I'm just not getting the logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Jim R said:

I guess I still don't understand this.  What reason is there for wanting fewer tracks to listen to and analyze?  If you don't have time to listen to 14 or 16 or 20 cuts, just listen to your eight or ten.  There's no requirement that you respond to the entire list, and it's always been common for a number of people to have done that (selectively participate) anyway.  There's no shame in it.  I've been doing this more and more in the past year or so, because I'd rather jump in and comment on a few tracks in a test where there are only a few tracks that I can relate to/enjoy/understand, etc, rather than sit the whole thing out just because most of it is not to my taste.  For the people who may want to present 2 CD's worth of material, limiting them to eight or ten cuts seems completely unnecessary and maybe even unfair to them.  If somebody presented 2 CD's worth of material and most of it was ignored (which I'd say is pretty rare), then oh well, perhaps lesson learned for them (or not).  But who cares?  Where is the problem?  I hope I don't sound combative here, I'm just not getting the logic.

I will do the same thing, comment on only some tracks on a Blindfold Test, because I realize that I have nothing valuable to say about some of the other tracks. But I do listen to all of the Blindfold Test, and decide whether or not I have any comments to make.

What you are saying, Jim R, is similar to what was said back when Jeffcrom proposed the length limit years ago.

I think that some people find a two CD length BFT just too intimidating to get to, too onerous to fit into their schedule for the month. It may seem like being given a 700 page book to read every month. Sure, you can skip around and browse in it, but just opening the cover to the first page may seem overwhelming if it is too long a tome.

I do wonder though--if you don't want to listen to 80 minutes of jazz in a month, what do we have here? Aren't we supposed to be the world's biggest jazz fans? Don't we want to listen to music any more?

If not, then the Blindfold Test should probably be relegated to the dustbin of history. I hope not.

It would be interesting to hear from those who have stopped participating in the BFT, as to whether the length of the tests matter to them. If there is another reason why they have stopped participating, that would be good to know about, too.

Edited by Hot Ptah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key thing here, in terms of my viewpoint concerning selective participation, is the online stream.  It's there, it's convenient, I can listen or not listen.  I can comment or not comment.  I wouldn't mind if somebody presented 3 CD's worth of material.  I might not get to all of it, but knowing that I don't have to get to all of it, I'm still going to look for something interesting, puzzling, appealing, recognizable, or whatever.  Something that I want to respond to.  If there wasn't time for me to get through the whole list of cuts, oh well, too bad for me, but no harm done.  If the presenter was (hypothetically) offended or hurt by a low level of response, then they would need to consider presenting less material next time.  But to make a law that people can't present 3CD's worth of material seems completely unnecessary to me.

If not for the online streaming, and if we were still mailing out CDR's, then that's an entirely different scenario in terms of responsibilities, expectations, etc etc.  That's where we've come from, so I wonder whether some of those thoughts about needing to listen to and respond to everything is carrying over from that era of the BFT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Jim R said:

The key thing here, in terms of my viewpoint concerning selective participation, is the online stream.  It's there, it's convenient, I can listen or not listen.  I can comment or not comment.  I wouldn't mind if somebody presented 3 CD's worth of material.  I might not get to all of it, but knowing that I don't have to get to all of it, I'm still going to look for something interesting, puzzling, appealing, recognizable, or whatever.  Something that I want to respond to.  If there wasn't time for me to get through the whole list of cuts, oh well, too bad for me, but no harm done.  If the presenter was (hypothetically) offended or hurt by a low level of response, then they would need to consider presenting less material next time.  But to make a law that people can't present 3CD's worth of material seems completely unnecessary to me.

If not for the online streaming, and if we were still mailing out CDR's, then that's an entirely different scenario in terms of responsibilities, expectations, etc etc.  That's where we've come from, so I wonder whether some of those thoughts about needing to listen to and respond to everything is carrying over from that era of the BFT.

I wondered about your last point. I have gone back and read over some of the early BFTs. The preparation and mailing of a physical CD-R to every member who participated was the sole way to share the tests. More members commented on each and every track back then. I wonder if the downloads, and now the streaming, makes a difference in overall participation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hot Ptah said:

I know that when I have prepared a BFT, I am very proud of every single one of my song choices, and think that each one is a stroke of genius on my part.

But then I am surprised that the listeners don't seem to really like some of the songs, or to care much about them.

Jazz is a vast spectrum of music.  You can't necessarily expect anything different in terms of people's reactions to what you like.  Making connections across eras and styles and continents was never going to be easy.  I think this is a big factor in the decline in participation.

Quote

... I think that some editing would do us all good, as we put together a Blindfold Test.

I don't know what you mean here.

Quote

Also, you can always save some of the songs for the next BFT that you put together. The next BFT seems to come upon you more quickly than you might imagine.

So in summary, I think that if we kept the Blindfold Tests to 80 minutes or less, it might make other members more likely to participate.

Hasn't it been pretty unusual for tests to go beyond 80 minutes (one CD) of music?

Edited by Jim R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Jim R said:

 

Hasn't it been pretty unusual for tests to go beyond 80 minutes (one CD) of music?

Actually it has been common for the BFTs to run between 80 to 100 minutes in length, and we have had several which were two CDs long in the past few years. I have played the BFTs on CD-Rs in my car over the past many years, and they often do not fit onto a single CD.

.

Edited by Hot Ptah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Hot Ptah said:

I wondered about your last point. I have gone back and read over some of the early BFTs. The preparation and mailing of a physical CD-R to every member who participated was the sole way to share the tests. More members commented on each and every track back then. I wonder if the downloads, and now the streaming, makes a difference in overall participation.

It probably should have increased participation, due to the sheer convenience of streaming.  Then again, now that the "responsibility to respond" factor has all but disappeared, there's less investment in the process.  I think it's more complicated than that, though.  I'm sure there are a variety of reasons that people stop participating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that we may have gone off on a slight tangent about the length of the BFT. As you say, the reasons for participation may be more varied than that.

The question remains, should we continue to have the BFT?

If so, we need presenters to step forward for 2016. That is where the rubber meets the road. Whatever we may think or feel about the BFT, if we do not get more presenters, it is all academic. There will be no BFT in several months of 2016 without some presenters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hot Ptah said:

My thought is that when a regular feature goes to a sporadic status, such as Album of the Month, it tends to disappear completely.

If members are interested in seeing the Blindfold Test continue, they need to volunteer to present one. Otherwise we will have months with no Blindfold Test this year, without any formal decision having been made, simply because there is no presenter.

 

Point taken about going to a less-frequent BFT.

I've been thinking for a couple of hours about a possible alternative BFT game. Here's a sketch of a proposal:

The game would become Mystery of the Week. Every Monday a tester starts a thread that presents one cut, just one, for listener comment. The game goes on until the commenters identify the performance or until the following Monday, whichever comes first.

If the cut is identified quickly (say, by Tuesday), the tester will have a runner-up track available to keep the game going. And it the runner-up is identified quickly, a second runner-up will be available.

It might broaden the appeal of the game and draw in some new people. 

One drawback, it might be more demanding on the BFT administrators. But potential benefits might outweigh the drawback.

Merely a proposal here, seeking a way to keep the game alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spontooneous said:

 

Point taken about going to a less-frequent BFT.

I've been thinking for a couple of hours about a possible alternative BFT game. Here's a sketch of a proposal:

The game would become Mystery of the Week. Every Monday a tester starts a thread that presents one cut, just one, for listener comment. The game goes on until the commenters identify the performance or until the following Monday, whichever comes first.

If the cut is identified quickly (say, by Tuesday), the tester will have a runner-up track available to keep the game going. And it the runner-up is identified quickly, a second runner-up will be available.

It might broaden the appeal of the game and draw in some new people. 

One drawback, it might be more demanding on the BFT administrators. But potential benefits might outweigh the drawback.

Merely a proposal here, seeking a way to keep the game alive.

I like the concept. However, I have noticed that with the BFTs in the last year, the presenter will post the link to the BFT on the first of the month. Often there are then several comments from the first to the fifth of the month, and again on the 28th to the 31st of the month, with no comments in between the fifth to the 28th. So we do not have a steady stream of participation all month long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My participation over the years has been sporadic, to say the least, but it's always a time thing, I don't like to get "free tunes" and ehn remain silent. But I lov the BFT being there, and always get happy when the time opens up to participate. So my vote is to continue, if only for selfish reasons.

Did not realize there was such a gap in upcoming presenters...my time thing is still unsettled, but I would definitely like to fill a gap...I'll sent a PM when things become clearer, ok?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Jim. We would love to have you as a presenter. Your BFTs are always a treat. Please let me know which month you would like, when things become more clear for you.

I am curious, as I genuinely do not understand this.. What did you mean by "I don't like to get 'free tunes.'"  Did you mean that you prefer not to have avant garde recordings on the BFTs. or did you mean something else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Hot Ptah said:

I am curious, as I genuinely do not understand this.. What did you mean by "I don't like to get 'free tunes.'"  Did you mean that you prefer not to have avant garde recordings on the BFTs. or did you mean something else?

Oh hell no! :g

It just means I don't like to freeload, to be given all the music without reciprocating with a response. Quid pro quo. Don't want to just the BFT as an excuse to mooch, that's all I'm saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...