What's new

Spitfire Westworld - Winner Announced!

Status
Not open for further replies.

chris massa

Bass Player gone Composer
I guess the old adage “no good deed goes unpunished” .. but also, I tend to take less notice of critique from people who hurl it anonymously from hastily created accounts.

still - I had fun!!

Hi Paul,

We had this conversation on the NAMM 2020 flr. over aperture strings. Damned if you do, Damned if you don't. It does make me sad.
 

paulthomson

Active Member
No Cathbad - there isn’t - it shouldn’t be after I’ve explained here a number of times. Rounds of judging by team at SF to narrow the field a few times, then the judges picked their winner and runners up.

they loved the winner - as did I.

that’s really all there is to it. He didn’t break the rules - modifying the clip would mean something like changing the edit.

I actually instructed entrants to do their own mix.

anyway - I can see this is pointless as it’s the same group of people commenting repeatedly, so this is my last word on it.
 

marclawsonmusic

Senior Member
Someone compared this to the bleeding fingers competition

That was me. And, yes, this thread went in the exact same direction as Bleeding Fingers... people accused a winner of nepotism and cronyism, which he was forced to deny publicly... and then the organizer had to come on and set things straight.

"No good deed..." (what Hans said a few years back)

Just saw this...

I guess the old adage “no good deed goes unpunished” ..

:sad:
 

rt09

New Member
Just my $0.02 as a outsider: I didn't enter, I don't even work in audio. I'm just a film music lover and big Westworld fan who followed this competition with some interest. I don't doubt that makes my opinion worthless on here and that's ok because it is :). Much of what I was going to say has probably already been said more eloquently by others before me, so will try to keep it short.

To me, the powerful reaction this has invoked appears to have been caused by an avoidable miscommunication, through the setting of unreasonable expectations by Spitfire in the very beginning. Btw fair play to Spitfire for offering this unique opportunity to everyone, this competition been just great to watch unfold from the sidelines. I also really enjoyed the winning entry, congratulations to David and to the runners up on their success.

Anyway back to my point!!

It appears to me that Spitfire set standards which it seems now that they / the judges didn't especially care if participants actually upheld. I have no doubt that the response they received was also far more overwhelming they ever expected and that contributed to some degree. In effect, Spitfire allowed the conditions for an unlevel playing field to be created: skirting the rules was the true first unwritten and unspoken rule of this competition.

At the very end, after they have unwittingly engineered this outcome, the competition runners absolve themselves of even the smallest share of responsibility. They proceed to rub salt in the wound by patronizing unhappy entrants, advising them to differentiate themselves and to essentially "grow up" and find their voice if they ever want to be successful. I don't think this advice is intended to be hurtful at all, it's coming from a place of wisdom derived from their own trials and tribulations that led them to success. But there does seem to a complete lack of self awareness here about their own role in this situation and an innate preference to categorize at least a very large chunk of the 11,000 entrants as childish sour grapes and mob mentality. Does Spitfire not think that they could have done anything differently to create a more positive outcome for all involved? Is there not a better way to handle this situation even after the fact?

I don't claim to have the answers. Washing their hands of it and forgetting this ever happened seems to be what they are intent on doing so far. That probably works but that would be disappointing in my opinion. I would love to see more competitions in the future and more such opportunities for creatives where entrants are not discouraged by incidents such as this and the uninclusive atmosphere that they generate.
 
Last edited:

Michael Stibor

Senior Member
Sign up time has no bearing on whether what he says has merit or not.

Why not address what he wrote, instead of making an ad hominem attack? There's some confusion about the judging process that you could perhaps shed light on.
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.
 

Eptesicus

Senior Member
No Cathbad - there isn’t - it shouldn’t be after I’ve explained here a number of times. Rounds of judging by team at SF to narrow the field a few times, then the judges picked their winner and runners up.

they loved the winner - as did I.

that’s really all there is to it. He didn’t break the rules - modifying the clip would mean something like changing the edit.

I actually instructed entrants to do their own mix.

anyway - I can see this is pointless as it’s the same group of people commenting repeatedly, so this is my last word on it.

Would you address my post below as i am certain that this is where the problem lies (if you care to get the bottom of why you had such a bad reaction to this)

The trouble with their justification for the winner, is that it undermines the justification for the runner's up.

That is what makes the results so utterly confusing and why the backlash has been so great (in my opinion)

If they had picked 6 completely left field approaches that paid over the top service to the genre change then i think the winning entry may have been easier to identify with for people.

Instead, the winner was completely "out there" and the 5 runners up are all fairly tame in comparison. Only one of the 5 actually properly changes genre at the genre change. What makes the "daring to be different!!" mantra even more jarring is that one of the runner up entries is a complete and utter generic rip off of Zimmer's Da Vinci Code/remote control sound that makes no attempt at doing anything with the genre change.

If to win, you had to do something outlandish and different, then why weren't the runners up all the same? There were easily at least 6 genre change ideas that were very well done that i had listened to, many of which still managed to keep things within the realms of plausibility (in terms of being used for the show) as well.

You have created a massive disconnect between the reasoning for the winner and the selection of the runner's up.

I dont think as many people would have had any problem with your judging criteria for the winner IF all the runner's up all followed the genre change and offered something unique and very different as well.

This would help entrants who take part in any future competitions you run as well.
 

chris massa

Bass Player gone Composer
The most disappointing part of this competition is being reminded, or for some people realising how toxic and negative this community can be. Tearing and pulling each other down, instead of standing strong together, and celebrating the competition in good spirits.

Oh how proud I am to be a part of such an awful, opinionated, entitled, negative, and demanding community.

Oh wait, you mean JJ's not going to ring me for season 4?
 

Mat

New Member
One point I haven't seen people making (maybe besides @christianhenson): When judging any competition, pitch, or job application, the number one thing in mind is often "Is this someone I'd love to work with?"

Resumes don't have to be perfect. The music doesn't need to be flawless. What's most important is conveying your character and creativity. This submission didn't win because it was the "most original". The submission won because the judges listened to it and said "Hot damn, this person would be a blast to work with, and my work will be better by including him in the process".

He successfully conveyed that through his music, which is incredible and something to take lessons from.
 

Michael Antrum

Only the good die young....
Spitfire are the ones who put the winner on the shortlist. It never should have even gone that far

In your opinion. There are many senior members here who also rated this entry very much. My personal favourite was the Silvestri homage, which I thought was very well done.

I really felt for the winner and his entry, both have been viciously abused both here and in YouTube - he does not deserve that - he should be celebrating and worrying about the price of SSD storage - instead he’s googling the federal witness protection program.

You just going to guarantee that this kind completion is never repeated and that would be a great shame.

If you never realised that this competition was a bit of good fun, and not a job opportunity, then you must be deluded.
 

Loïc D

Monkeying with libraries
@paulthomson I’m sorry to see you justify yourself here.

There’s no discussion : the jury made a choice. Period.

It’s D+1 and some ppl here are still ranting (usually the same ones who rant against Spitfire marketing, OT’s switch to Sine engine, you name it)

It was told in the video from day one : this contest was a non standard issue !

People should have guessed... :P
 

josephspirits

Active Member
Vi Control is the place where it's the least toxic out of the bunch, sure but I've seen a lot of negative things said on Youtube (worst offender), but places like Twitter, Facebook, and Discord too. Things that cannot be good for one's mental health. David's or the folk at Spitfire Audio.

Breaking the rules is of course wrong, and that needs to be in check though.

Yeah I really hope David can avoid so many of the negativity around the Internet right now because he really doesn’t deserve it directed to him or his work. Tension on the Internet is high everywhere right now, for so many reasons. I hope he can separate from the noise and just enjoy his win and new samples.
 

Michael Stibor

Senior Member
I really felt for the winner and his entry, both have been viciously abused both here and in YouTube...
Has he though? I personally haven’t seen it here. Most of the anger has been directed at Spitfire.

And I don't read Youtube comments other than replies to my own so. I wouldn’t know.

I think we can all agree that that that would be totally unacceptable.
 

Eptesicus

Senior Member
Has he though? I personally haven’t seen it here. Most of the anger has been directed at Spitfire.

And I don't read Youtube comments other than replies to my own so. I wouldn’t know.

I think we can all agree that that that would be totally unacceptable.

Yeh, i haven't seen him being attacked on here? As you say, that is really unacceptable. David wrote a great piece of music and the judges chose him as the winner. It's a real shame he is getting unwarranted and rude comments on his youtube channel.

That doesnt mean debate over whether we agree with the judges decsions and how they came to that conclusion should be stifled though.
 

mussnig

Senior Member
I think in light of the upset, there should be some explanation about the choice. Creativity was just one criteria which was met for sure...just don't think the other criteria were at all.

Isn't it just enough that the jury picked those entries because they simply liked them most or they resonated the most with them (for whatever reason others might not see or understand)?

And even if they had detailed sheets where they gave points for the different criteria (I don't know if they did or not) - once they would release those sheets, there would for sure be people complaining and disagreeing with the scores being given (e.g. 'But entry A was - in my opinion - much more creative than entry C but received less points for that criterion - that's not fair!'). The thing is, that this is a very subjective matter and sometimes things like this even depend on the daily moods of the jury - it's not a multiple choice math test were it would be clear who is 'better'. But then again - if this were a very objective thing, you wouldn't need a jury anyways. Also, some people complain that some of the runners up are not creative or different enough - well, but maybe they were for the jury and that's what matters.

Also, I don't fully understand why people feel 'entitled' to a more detailed reasoning, a better anouncement video, etc. They (Spitfire & HBO) didn't need to do this in the first place and they don't 'owe' us anything. And frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if they choose to not do something like this again, given all the complaints, attacks, etc., which is quite sad ...
 

josephspirits

Active Member
You have two basic options here:

1. Continue to rage and whine ad infinitum because Spitfire didn't judge their own competition the way you think they should've.
2. Learn what you can from this and move on.

Which do you think is more productive?

amen.

I hope next time they do a contest all of the people that don’t see the value in trying for their own growth just sit out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mat
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom