Spitfire Westworld Winner Announced - SPINOFF for people from YouTube

gspot

censored
[/QUOTE]
Well don't ever accuse me of not being a massive glutton for punishment!

Mountain perspectives

OK. This is directly @ Mr Henson. It´s going to be a longer one. In case you want to remain on your "mountain", don´t read beyond this point:

You - Sir - are missing the point. Maybe on purpose. Maybe accidentally. Your whole argument is that the winning score is "against the rules" and "unexpected" and "off the tracks" and that alle the people speaking up against the competition are "mainstream" and "consent-driven" and part of a "cancel culture".

This is simply not true and could not in fact be more wrong. The point is that the way the competition was conducted and the winners celebrated was a slap in the face of all participants (and this metaphor is put very mildly).

The truth is as simple: If you let the Genie out of the bottle you better prepare for people making wishes. It is not the people whining about not having won. It is about a company that is selling the dream of being a little bit like Hans Zimmer in your painfully payed for home studio. It is this company that whines because they played a marketing campaign on this dreams by letting composers of the whole world dream this dream a little more intense and then not being able to handle it in even the slightest professional manner.

The shortness of the announcement video ... the "zero effort" setup ... your co-founder visibly feeling like a class member having forgotten to do the homework ... the "respect" for the runner ups by playing back roughly a few out of context seconds and then just saying their name ... Your co-founder saying goodbye while the winner video was not even played back. That - Sir - speaks volumes. Is says: We were overwhelmed by the echo and the task at hand. We decided to not invest time, thoughts, love or care to adapt to the success of this competition. We don`t take you - our clients and wanna be clients serious!

You now may say "that is a harsh judgement". You cannot prove that. Or can I? As the BBC library came out Spitfire created little "behind the curtain" teaser videos. Snippets of you coming off your mountain talking during travel about big things to come. That was love ... and care ... and thoughts ... and time ... FOR YOUR OWN STUFF THAT YOU DID TAKE SERIOUS. The announcement video? I`ve gotten birthday videos from distant associates that took more effort to create.

I`d like to let you dream a little bit. Imagine having set a few teaser videos within the last weeks. Like going through the room where spitfire people were sighting and shortlisting. Showing a little of their work. What they think about the people creating all this. Whether they still are able to listen to Taiko drums. Then ... imagine having a 90 minutes video with your co-founder introducing the process, how hard it was to choose and then switching to at least two members of the Jury. Having a little chat about what they experienced. Giving a little bit of visibility to some entries. How about then announcing a little special price for the 10 most unexpected or special entries. Could have been something small and inexpensive. Your clients and prospects are not in this for the money - as you should remember. Then having all runner up videos and the winner played in full length - interrupted by some Jury commentary to take out the uniformity of the pictures. If all this would have been tried, don`t you think that after a night of content and happy sleep you would be sitting on your mountain talking about much more beautiful things?

Instead you`re weaseling your way out. Well ... you try to. We all should grow up and stop whining. That`s the way the media industry works. The winner delivered a "Sex Pistols - never mind the bollocks" soundtrack and everybody thinking otherwise is "mainstream". You even have the guts to direct the "break rules" attitude you advise against your own Spitfire Audio competition rules that clearly stated within the Q&As that participants must refrain from known themes and that all delivered material needs to be original (Look it up!). You even top this by spitting out obvious lies like "the like/dislike display is switched of by youtube automatically (youtube`s very own "rewind 2018" ...has 17 Million dislikes ... they are clearly visible!). We - Spitfire Audio - don`t censor. That - Sir - is no longer weaseling. That is - for a lack of a better world - "Trumping".

I would assume that the larger part of your real clients are rather dreaming of a career than having one (Pro`s usually don`t have the time for competitions). They - SIR - are the people earning and spending the money your company lives of. They - Sir - now have been taught a lecture to stop dreaming. And I guess that you will see this within your balance sheet.

I am constantly harassed by people telling me that attention is the currency of our time. If that is so I respectfully withdraw everything in my spitfire audio account. And - as you seemingly are not willing to come down the mountain and own and repair this I`ll do the same with you. If you interpret this as "cancel culture" then please by any means feel free to do so. But don`t continue to use "whining" as description of what others do. It`s a little to self-referencing.

yours,
Gernot
 

DexiMas

New Member
That’s exactly why it works and why David won though: story telling through music, telling the story the visuals DON’T tell. There’s the literal text in any story and then there’s the sub-text, which is always the most interesting part, and what the smart composer scores. As they say, you don’t score the man running, you score WHY he runs. That’s exactly what David has done here, it is a masterclass in storytelling.

Again, that’s EXACTLY what the music accomplishes here, and why it’s a brilliant bit of film music writing.

Congrats David, absolutely brilliant idea and execution, well deserved!
You're reaching really hard. It does not work with the scene in any way. It's not "telling the story the visuals don't tell", it's completely disconnected. It's supposed to compliment the visuals that we see. I'm sure a big reason people are being so accepting of it here is because Christian Henson posts here. If you want to see the real consensus, go read the YouTube comments. Which are now disabled, of course. Can't have people expressing themselves
 

Michael Stibor

Senior Member
Instead you`re weaseling your way out. Well ... you try to. We all should grow up and stop whining. That`s the way the media industry works. The winner delivered a "Sex Pistols - never mind the bollocks" soundtrack and everybody thinking otherwise is "mainstream". You even have the guts to direct the "break rules" attitude you advise against your own Spitfire Audio competition rules that clearly stated within the Q&As that participants must refrain from known themes and that all delivered material needs to be original (Look it up!). You even top this by spitting out obvious lies like "the like/dislike display is switched of by youtube automatically (youtube`s very own "rewind 2018" ...has 17 Million dislikes ... they are clearly visible!). We - Spitfire Audio - don`t censor. That - Sir - is no longer weaseling. That is - for a lack of a better world - "Trumping".
I agree with this. Also, it’s funny, I also saw a lot of Trump-isms in this video. If you don’t agree with me, you’re part of some consensual dogma, etc.
 
OP
gspot

gspot

censored
@paul. I joined yesterday after the youtube channel did not let me comment. My account is - as my youtube account - in full detail. It is simple. If you cannot cope with content - then rethoric drives you to attack formalities. Nothing else to add here.
 

DexiMas

New Member
Exactly. At this point what’s done is done. They’re not going to go back and change the winners (nor should they). But when the majority of your entrants (and judging by the likes/dislikes before the meter was disabled, it IS the majority) are confused about the judging, I think there’s some merit there. He’s not obliged to address it, I guess. But you can’t just start try to de-legitimize their opinions by noting how long they’ve been on the site.
Paul and Christian just seem really intent on believing that people are only complaining because they're "jealous" they did not win. However nobody is complaining about the placement of the runner up winners, so that belief holds no water. We are just upset that Spitfire did not take this seriously and ignored the criteria THEY set, just to pick something "different" for the sake of being different. Different isn't always good, especially in this case
 

Cathbad

Active Member
Just to add:

If the terms and conditions were not broken in the winning entry then all this energy you are all generating is wasted...Spitfire or the judges could choose any entry they wanted....

So focus in on the terms and conditions...not the winning composition...

If the terms and conditions were broken then the competition is a farce....not because you don’t think the winning composition is good or fits, or anything else...only if the terms and conditions were not adhered to.

Watch bake off.... Brief : make a chocolate cake without cream of any description ...be creative

The winning cake contains cream ...that’s not how competitions work...:2thumbs:
Totally agree. I believe the original rule was "The Westworld clip must not be altered in any way" or words to very similar effect. I see a difference between that and what Paul Thomson said, above: "Modifying the clip would mean something like changing the edit."

The winning entry has various alterations to the sound of dialogue and audio FX. So it falls foul of the first rule, but not Mr Thomson's interpretation.

David Kudell's response to all this has been 100% class. Gracious in receiving thanks, patient in explaining his take on the cue and addressing questions about the JJ Abrams issue politely but assertively. Bravo. It's a sharp contrast to the petulant displays from the two Spitfire founders when asked - on a music discussion forum - to discuss a bit about why they liked the music.
 

Cathbad

Active Member
@Mike Greene I strongly disagree with splitting off a thread for @DexiMas and @gspot

They can speak for themselves, of course, but neither said anything irrational or offensive. DexiMas just offered a personal judgement without being insulting. Gspot's criticism is robust, but reasoned and not written so as to offend. It's also counterbalanced by constructive suggestions.
 

Michael Stibor

Senior Member
Yes, moving these comments here is an extreme overreaction. If the posts from new members were antagonistic in nature, that would be one thing. But they weren’t. Most people lurk in forums for months, and join when they have something they want to express. Not sure why this is different here.

Also, I’m assuming mine was moved as I used the word Trump in response to one of the posts that mentioned him vaguely. I understand and have no issues with that if it’s against the rules. Just don’t agree with the other posts being moved.
 
This is not what the forum is for. This forum is for members (a community that most of us care a lot about) to discuss their thoughts. Positive or negative. But it is not for people to carry on with their grudges from elsewhere. Specifically, if you say you're here from YouTube, well ... my job is to make sure this forum doesn't start resembling the YouTube comments section. ;)

Moreover, I'm not fond of people with anonymous profiles coming in, guns a-blazin'. It's easy to be brave when you're anonymous behind a computer screen, so a polite conversation can turn ugly in an instant. With the damage being done to the forum and the real members, while the anonymous newbie slinks off to wherever he came from.

So as I've said many times (including ... yesterday!), people who have little investment in the forum (anonymous newbies having the least investment of all) are on a much shorter leash.

I'm moving Gspot's and DexiMas's posts to the Drama Zone. No doubt that will be a controversial decision for some, and I'll be the first to admit this may be an overreaction. But I'm serious that I don't want this to become YouTube, so I'm erring on the side of being a very picky doorman. Again, real members can post as always, positive or negative, since they have an understanding of what this community is. This is just about protecting the spirit of the forum from outsiders who join specifically to vent.

If you disagree, please post in this new thread, not here. And for the record, no one from Spitfire has contacted me at all. This is entirely a move for what I believe is best for the forum.
I might be a new member here, but I regularly post at Gearslutz, Reddit, Ableton forum and others with the same nickname.

Anyway, this competition put most of us out of the woods. No wonder the ranting and the tension is big, there are 11k ppl at the minimum trying to compose for film out there... I really had been noticing that music production videos were getting too many views on Youtube, like Guy's videos or even Ableton tutorials. It's true, just look at the current thread...

There will be crybabies. We got to a stage where ppl earn money in the music biz by making Spotify playlists, no doubt ppl will be ultra self-entitled in this age. The notion that they have ultimate and objective real taste was given to them with access to content.
 

DexiMas

New Member
@Mike Greene I strongly disagree with splitting off a thread for @DexiMas and @gspot

They can speak for themselves, of course, but neither said anything irrational or offensive. DexiMas just offered a personal judgement without being insulting. Gspot's criticism is robust, but reasoned and not written so as to offend. It's also counterbalanced by constructive suggestions.
Agree. So what I'm learning here is that if you're new, your opinion doesn't count for shit.
 

Michael Stibor

Senior Member
I am a new member so, if I understand correctly, I don’t really belong and my opinion doesn’t count. However, I congratulate David and the runners up. I heard many fantastic entries on my own listening as well. I come from the classical performance world and so I understand competitions. I don’t think the vitriol is necessary or helpful at all. However, I’m seeing so many civil comments that simply want some more insight as to the judging, and many are from people who didn’t even compete. I think it is wrong to dismiss all of these comments as “sore losers” and a somewhat condescending “welcome to the business”. This competition was for hobbyists and professionals alike.
Wow, even THIS comment got moved?! How dare you congratulate the winner and commend civility. I guess vi control forum knows which side their bread is buttered, and who’s doing the buttering. And it’s not the forum members.
 

rt09

New Member
Moving these comments is wholly unnecessary. The moderator seriously fears this will become a YouTube comment section because a horde (single digit numbers?) of new users have posted in the last 24 hours?

a) This implies that he believes people on YouTube are beneath the standard of discussion that merits this forum, which is simply not true no matter how you spin it. There are many civil and in-depth discussions going on over there just from a cursory inspection. YouTube comment section isn't a barrel of apples.

b) Are there any signs of incivility from the users who have been moved so far? None, it seems to me.

I think it is an overreaction. It seems to me that the intention is to end all constructive discussion by splitting the communal discussion space and creating separate spaces that now need to be traversed to avoid an echo chamber in either.
 

Cathbad

Active Member
David Kudell's response to all this has been 100% class. Gracious in receiving thanks, patient in explaining his take on the cue and addressing questions about the JJ Abrams issue politely but assertively. Bravo. It's a sharp contrast to the petulant displays from the two Spitfire founders when asked - on a music discussion forum - to discuss a bit about why they liked the music.
@Michael Stibor My comment above was moved because of the passage in bold, immediately after I posted here in support of the two new members having their say.

Christian Henson's written post and video made liberal use of R-rated language and were quite heated and defensive. Paul Thomson made ad hominem attacks on two new members who had been critical but not rude. And then he replied to my polite enquiry in a tone that doesn't do him great credit, but nevertheless I responded politely.

Petulant feels like a perfectly appropriate adjective.
 

DexiMas

New Member
Allow me to lower the tension here? I mean really, let's put aside all hard feelings and congratulate David, who did a very good job afterall! :thumbsup:


According to Christian Henson, even Stanley Kubrick would have vote for this entry. That's quite an amusing statement and I immediately imagined what it would sound like if we had yet another scoring competition, this time for a scene from Kubrick's film. :grin:

this is incredible and really highlights how absurd Christians "it won because it's different" argument is.
 

Mike Greene

Senior Member
Moderator
Wow, even THIS comment got moved?! How dare you congratulate the winner and commend civility. I guess vi control forum knows which side their bread is buttered, and who’s doing the buttering. And it’s not the forum members.
If the very first sentence is "I am a new member so, if I understand correctly, I don’t really belong and my opinion doesn’t count," then yes, it gets moved here. I think I was pretty clear that discussion about that be here, not there?

Also, you would do well to read the forum rules. One of the rules is that accusing me of making moderating decisions based on advertising dollars is a bannable offense. I put that in place (it's 100% serious) because not only is it a direct insult to me and my integrity, but I also get tired of explaining what this forum is about to people who just want to assume the worst. And accuse me of such.
 

Mike Greene

Senior Member
Moderator
I strongly disagree with splitting off a thread for DexiMas and gspot.

They can speak for themselves, of course, but neither said anything irrational or offensive. DexiMas just offered a personal judgement without being insulting. Gspot's criticism is robust, but reasoned and not written so as to offend. It's also counterbalanced by constructive suggestions.
This forum has a very long history, most of which I won't go into, but one relevant thing we've learned is that certain high profile members are targets. Hans, for instance, has had to deal with a number of people who see he's here, then take the opportunity to accuse him of not writing his own material or whatever. They will carefully couch their words so as not to be directly insulting ("I was only asking, not accusing!"), but the implication is still clear.

So we've learned that the bar needs to be higher than just "irrational or offensive," as you say. Instead, the bar is "If you're making things unpleasant for another member, then you're on thin ice." That's more to the point, since I (and 99% of the membership) want to keep Hans and Paul and Christian on the forum. They (and a handful of other high profile members) have to deal with more than their share of people wanting to do battle, which isn't what they come here for.

By the way, this is why I give less slack to newbies. Any normal member already knows this. Please read this post.

Obviously "Don't make things unpleasant" is open to interpretation, but in the Spitfire Winner thread, I don't think anyone can deny that Gspot was making things unpleasant for Christian. (If you don't see that, you're in the 1%.) Maybe if Gspot was someone we all knew, that might be okay. But anonymous newbie? Especially one who admits coming here specifically to engage Christian? No.

That is not what the forum is for. The forum is for all members, including the high profile ones, to have a pleasant experience. Not a place where, "Oooh, I found a place where I can give Christian a piece of my mind!"
 

Michael Stibor

Senior Member
If the very first sentence is "I am a new member so, if I understand correctly, I don’t really belong and my opinion doesn’t count," then yes, it gets moved here. I think I was pretty clear that discussion about that be here, not there?

Also, you would do well to read the forum rules. One of the rules is that accusing me of making moderating decisions based on advertising dollars is a bannable offense. I put that in place (it's 100% serious) because not only is it a direct insult to me and my integrity, but I also get tired of explaining what this forum is about to people who just want to assume the worst. And accuse me of such.
Noted.