Jump to content

How do you review? Do you consider your criteria responsible?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Actually, Tommy, I agree with you, too. I'm sorry it didn't seem that way.

I was operating on what I thought was logic. If we make the standard advice to be "get a coach" and people do exactly that, then all the discussions we have or critiques we could give would be superfluous. Or, at least secondary to whatever advice our own coach or coaches give us.

If we don't give primary weight to what our coach or teacher says, then why go?

I think you're saying that what the audience perceives, whether they are cultured or drunk, or both, also matters and I do agree with that. For me, live is where it is at, recordings are secondary. And I often catch some heat for that, even from my own brother, slstone.

As he put it and others are likely to say something similar, the recording is your "calling card." And a less than stellar recording can be construed to mean that you don't care enough to "do your very best." And that's a valid point, too.

So, if our critique is to be responsible to the perfection of the art, should it also include ideas about how to record and mix and edit in order to but our best "product" forward?

Even though it is natural for me to be confrontational, I try not to be. Just the same, I have told someone that he had pitch wobbles and was immediately told "no, I didn't have those." Okay, then. So much for being plain-jane honest.

Likewise, I have been told that I was singing all wrong on a song that a number of people liked. More people liked it than the one who didn't like it. But even that critical review was important to me. That I should not sing out of my range (the song was too low for me.) I should either avoid that song or transpose it to a key that works for me. By singing too low, I was purposefully going against what I normally do to sing free and easy. What I did actually used high larynx and constriction. Neat for an effect but not good for my singing, as a whole. So, in a sense, I did do something wrong. And the input is very valuable. That's not how the critique was phrased but that is one of the lessons I took from it. In some cases, you are only as good as your last recording. 3 guesses to who gave me that valuable information.

So, let's all be clear and honest, me included, from here on. No more "good job" just as a carte blanche response. Although, maybe my ear is uncultured. If I think the song is good and one that I would pay to hear, then I will say that. For I am also a fan.

"Butt kiss"? That gave me an image I could do without.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think you're saying that what the audience perceives, whether they are cultured or drunk, or both, also matters and I do agree with that.

No, what I am saying is that even with a coach I still listen to what others on a forum say. I can learn at least something from everyone. Even from the mistakes of others and at times even from critique that doesn't match the next guys. Maybe then I would bring it back to the coach and ask "what about this?" I really don't think too deeply about it. I just keep my mind open and try to absorb all I can. You never know where your next great bit of knowledge will come from. Maybe under a rock. From a butterfly or a slug....doesn't matter. Don't be picky by outward appearance, or you may miss that one life changing bit of information because you thought it couldn't possibly come from "that guy."

So the forum would survive.

And I think if every member on this forum had a coach they would still come here and spend the same amount of time and they would still post songs. People can't stay off the net! :D And singers can't help say "listen to me." We are entertainers by nature.

There are countless sports forums filled with people who have coaches and instructors/teachers who still flood into forums seeking advice, offering advice and showing samples of themselves for critique or help, as well as just "look at me."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're saying that what the audience perceives, whether they are cultured or drunk, or both, also matters and I do agree with that.

No, what I am saying is that even with a coach I still listen to what others on a forum say. I'm not talking about audiences. I'm talking about here on the forum. "Forum members critiques and advice." I can learn at least something from everyone. Even from the mistakes of others and at times even from critique that doesn't match the next guys. Maybe then I would bring it back to the coach and ask "what about this?" I really don't think too deeply about it. I just keep my mind open and try to absorb all I can. You never know where your next great bit of knowledge will come from. Maybe under a rock. From a butterfly or a slug....doesn't matter. Don't be picky by outward appearance, or you may miss that one life changing bit of information because you thought it couldn't possibly come from "that guy."

So the forum would survive.

And I think if every member on this forum had a coach they would still come here and spend the same amount of time and they would still post songs. People can't stay off the net! :D And singers can't help say "listen to me." We are entertainers by nature.

There are countless sports forums filled with people who have coaches and instructors/teachers who still flood into forums seeking advice, offering advice and showing samples of themselves for critique or help, as well as just "look at me."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I think if every member on this forum had a coach they would still come here and spend the same amount of time and they would still post songs. People can't stay off the net! :D And singers can't help say "listen to me." We are entertainers by nature.

A hearty amen for that.

And sorry I misunderstood you. As I am often misunderstood, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you gotta be honest. And at the same time show some class.. I listen to alot of the singers on here and when someone picks a difficult song and sounds listenable I will always give props. I may not comment on some of the stuff cause maybe i don't like or understand the music very well..If I hear someone doing something that I can help with i will usually try and help. But if its a Personal style thing and they sound decent I don't mess with it. That is what separates each singer, personal style.

"All qualities are acceptable as long as vocal health is not jeopardized.....Everyone has a beautiful voice."

This is a funny quote cause I look at it the other way sometimes. Example:

If any of you or I was producing Curt Cobain. Would you have tried to fix his vocal health and the way he sings? He was destroying his voice but was so cool sounding and honest it showed.

I wouldnt have What would you have done?

I say listen just listen and if they ask for technical help then help but don't put your ego to work on their art. I'm sure some of the greatest singers have been lost because they were told they were no good and need to work need to learn how to sing. I remember going to a couple lessons with Ron Anderson and thats what he told me. That I would have no career if i kept singing like that.. Meanwhile I was making a hell of a living singing.

So be nice and helpful

I'm sorry that I get frustrated sometimes on this forum but that is because I am trying to help.

Didactics-The art or science of teaching.

I had to look it up you and your big words

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron - don't worry, I often understand you.

At least, I think I do.

I think you do, brutha from the Black Country.

And at least you didn't beat me up for my one impersonation of Glenn Hughes. I still think I sounded more like the gekko from the Geico commercials. I can do faux brit accent, I just don't always get the regional sound correct. I have a friend from Manchester and I had misplaced his accent, too. He was here in the States for quite some time. Then, he went back to Manchester to take care of something and has been there since. And I am rambling again. I'll shut up, now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel listenable is one thing, really not what I mean here.

In the way I see it, honesty first, always. Its easy to be classy by just saying "sounding good" "good job" "way to go". A difficult song, with one correct phrase and the rest teared to pieces is useless in the real world, you know that as well as I do.

If it was you doing that song, would it be ok if others were listenning to that result presented? Thats the line between what acceptable and unnaceptable to me. If the answer is no, than I proceed into what would I have to hear to proceed. And so on.

And really, you could have picked another example hahaha, Curt Kobain is not really someone most people use as a reference of anything. People like how he sang, when he was alive, sure. But at least to me, it doesnt seem a desirable way to achieve things nor to live a life. So many better references that are not centered on vocal health or technique... And just in the case you dont plan on becoming a super star, you know too how important vocal health is if you depend on it to make your living.

Finaly, Id like to make it clear that I dont review anything here based on vocal health or on styles. One simple song, well executed, pleasant to listen to, is worth much more than 15 difficult songs that make you press stop as soon as the guy opens his mouth. Completely altering your own voice is not a style. I remember one guy that was singing queen a few months ago, sounded like a squirell with a belly ache, and people were all "ooohhh nice, way to go", "soon you will have results". God have mercy on him if he proceeded on that, and on the coach that will have to undo all the mess. But I was the bad guy on the occasion, for pointing the obvious, uncomfortable maybe, but obvious.

In the cases that its possible to interfere, where things are already working in way where its possible, I do give small directions, but really, there are things that you cant do with text, you know that too Daniel. An airy emission or without energy, you need to tell the person to go strong, how do you know what is being done is correct and will not lead to a problem even worse than the airyness/weakness? (these things are not stylish decisions, thats a big technical problem that no matter the style will bring problems).

Didatic is the key of course. But when people are just reading and not really paying attention, there is no didatic, the person will just understand whatever it fits best what he/she wants to be the truth. Only once I had an oportunity to interfere that I was sure that would render results, because the mindset was correct, and even in that case, I think its very unlikely that any result will come from it before a directed study, with a teacher, is done. Other than that, its all black magic.

The value in this section is exactly in collecting honest reviews of people who are involved with the activity before exposing a work, and also collecting directions when its possible. Its insane to try to make everyone sing by pointing random bits of problems on totally broken executions. Not only you will not help the person, as you will make your own opinions dubious: So do I trust this guy who says the squirell dude is good? Quite hard in my opinion.

But this is just my opinion, I have very strong reasons to act this way, because If I had a "good job" back on the day I began second guessing the instruction I was receiving, maybe I would still be pretending to sing while others pretended to like...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Felpe wrote:

"The value in this section is exactly in collecting honest reviews of people who are involved with the activity before exposing a work, and also collecting directions when its possible. Its insane to try to make everyone sing by pointing random bits of problems on totally broken executions. Not only you will not help the person, as you will make your own opinions dubious: So do I trust this guy who says the squirell dude is good? Quite hard in my opinion."

(this is not aimed at your comment. I am just using it as a lead in.) Also I agree with you and would rather have someone tell me that I sound like a duck if I do. But would also like suggestions for not sounding like a duck.

I don't remember the squirrell dude. It may have been me who said good job, I don't remember.

If brian Johnson and Axle Rose was to submit a song here for review I would have to say to both of them "Dude you sound like a munchkin" but to others it is spot on perfect execution. But if it was on key and had energy weather I actually liked the sound of their voice or not I would probably say good job you are on track keep training.

Or should I tell them that if they keep up the way they are going they will not be able to a sing in a normal voice after a while?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the thing, M. People want some hints at not sunding like a duck. Unless they are working on twang. And then, then the instruction is, in fact, to sound like a duck.

However, it seems, that desired way to not sound like a duck is to suggest getting a coach, rather than trying to help not sound like a duck.

So, go to a coach and listen to him say "Who cares about ducks? Shut up and sing and let me hear you. Don't force the inhale, let it happen. Control the expiration. Watch your pitch." Etc, etc.

Unless quacking like a duck becomes the fashion, IDK.

"just keep swimming, swimming, swimming ...." - Ellen DeGeneres

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although, we keep using coach and teacher interchangably. A teacher or instructor teaches basics. I think a coach helps define the sound for a genre. Though, I could be wrong.

Maybe one needs a buzzsaw coach to sound like Axl.

Or, whoever taught Janis Joplin, as they had similar sounds. Oops, I think I said that out loud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't remember the squirrell dude. It may have been me who said good job, I don't remember.

If brian Johnson and Axle Rose was to submit a song here for review I would have to say to both of them "Dude you sound like a munchkin" but to others it is spot on perfect execution. But if it was on key and had energy weather I actually liked the sound of their voice or not I would probably say good job you are on track keep training.

Or should I tell them that if they keep up the way they are going they will not be able to a sing in a normal voice after a while?

I like what you say here about brian and Axl. Felipe I think if brian and Axl were not who they are you would probably pick them apart vocally. You see what I mean. Everyone can throw his or her technique around and pick at this or that I just believe in helping with positives rather than hurting with not so much negatives but focusing on the bad of the song rather than the really good and saying "sounds good go with that part there"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mdew I know that it would be awesome if we could message a instruction to solve the problem. But how to do it?

If its an isolated issue, like one vowel in one spot collapsing, then it may be the case. "Take care, in that spot, its going too forward, sounding like a duck, try to keep the posture the same as the rest".

But if everything is random, vowels wavering all around, tongue tension, emission totally forced (to the point of sounding like a squirell, this is NOT resonance), and when its a poor execution you can count on it, you cant even go near these things before breathing, support, emission, are working. Its not a matter of simply telling the guy the old "release your voice". Sure, release it, how the hell do you release something that is being produced based on tensions and constrictions? It will break!

Didatic as said before say must come into play. First of all, at least one solid, correct reference must be found, and if not possible, built. From there, the rest can be applied. This varies much from person to person, it depends on what is being done currently both on spoken voice and on singing, and must be verified to be working. Without trainning, you simply dont know where to look, you dont have the perception of the details that matter, which will also vary.

Emission ajustment is a boring and necessary process that will dictate the quality of the whole work being developed. If it is not done well, you risk having to discard years of work to reajust it, not to mention more time fighting against old habits. Its not something that can be solved with a "tip", a supportive word or a optimistic mindset.

About these guys comming to the forum and asking for opinions... just give it, why not? That korean guy from Gangnan Style might come just as well. Whatever the superstar formulae is, he is the one with it in the moment, maybe he could give out some directions, Id like to listen to what he has to say :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe one needs a buzzsaw coach to sound like Axl.

Or, whoever taught Janis Joplin, as they had similar sounds. Oops, I think I said that out loud.

Ok now wait a minute. Janis, in my opinion is worlds above Axl Rose. In all aspects. I can appreciate Axl a bit more these days since I know a little about singing but when I first heard him back when GnR first surfaced I thought he sucked. Brian? I think he is good where he is. It fits. Other than that? Not really what I consider a singer. So you see? There is somewhat of a prejudice that is common I think. I'm sure heavy metal rock fans think Axl or Brian Johnson's singing is a goal to strive for. What about Motorhead? Whatever the singers name is Lemmy? Ian?

Anyway, I actually love his sound although it is (to me) more of a gimmick and is why I like it. As for "singing?" I don't think so. It fits what he is doing but I would never aspire to be that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris, There is a reason for this place being here. I have no teacher never got any decent advice from anyone until I joined here. Am I a better singer for being here? Yes. Do I really know anymore about proper technique? I don't. But I am hard headed.

The main advice most people give here is get a coach or a teacher. That being said, In the mean time work on support. I finaly found out what support really means from being here. I don't support correctly but now I am not trying to push like hell from my stomache which I was doing before because I had a false idea of what support is.

The information or advice that seems to be the best comes out in threads like this one where two or more coaches have different views and show by example why they think the way they do.

I had an AHA moment reading your post. I believe that my bottom end is mostly solid so I do not think about it as much. I would not have thought that maybe I am wearing myself out on the lower end before I even get to the higher notes. I am not saying that is my problem and I am all fixed now. I am saying I would not even think of that.

Maybe it doesn't help to say that someone is "Pitchy" (although there was one guy who was way off and he did not know that pitch had anything to do with singing. It did help him to tell him that pitch meant a whole lot), but it does help to tell him the chorus was good and showed potential although the verses were lacking in -------.

Felipe's advice of "get a coach" is great. Daniels' advice of "shut up and sing" is great. Ronws' advice of "motion in the abs. nothing in the throat" is great.

Chris I love hearing you sing. You've posted songs here for us to review and critique. You must believe that there is a reason for this forum. All that I could come up with was "That was great" and I wish that I could sound that good. From me that was an honest opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel, no! Im saying that if I like it, I say it, if not, I say it too. But the examples are of working executions, it has quality, maybe not through technique, but it does have a defined melody, a solid interpretation and homogeneity and consistency (but at what cost?). In many other threads Ive said that it was sounding nice but had technical problems. I repeat its not the cases. That Queen guy was murdering the song from the beginning to end for example, if I remember correctly Chris told him to yawn, hopefully he did.

In these cases, high quality delivery, sure, its worth thinking about the existant quality. Not the case when what you have is a broken execution. Consistency and homogeneity zero and tons of tensions creeping behind a weak production. What is there to think about? How many persons could be singing at a top level if this kind of information was treated more naturally instead of all this sensitivity and fear of hurting each other?

Anyways we are going way too far from the initial proposal, its simple! When you say that its good, is the song really good? ;)

Chris Oh but how seldom does this kind of situation happens? Once in like, every single session? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mdew there is a reason man. We can exchange experiences. Question is, will we exchange experiences, in equality, not assuming less of people for the sake of some sense of "singing politics" or will we really open the game?

Its a really simple matter, as long as we keep it simple. The moment you start to question if you should say that its really bad because "what if this person quits", you are not helping, you are misleading. If this person could understand that its not working he/she would not be sending it on the forums. No matter for how long this person been studying whatever it was, no matter if its a disciple of Pai Mei himself.

If because of one poor review the person will quit, better not even start on this. Not everyone is as carefull and polite as I am when expressing a "not sounding good".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok now wait a minute. Janis, in my opinion is worlds above Axl Rose. In all aspects. I can appreciate Axl a bit more these days since I know a little about singing but when I first heard him back when GnR first surfaced I thought he sucked. Brian? I think he is good where he is. It fits. Other than that? Not really what I consider a singer. So you see? There is somewhat of a prejudice that is common I think. I'm sure heavy metal rock fans think Axl or Brian Johnson's singing is a goal to strive for. What about Motorhead? Whatever the singers name is Lemmy? Ian?

Anyway, I actually love his sound although it is (to me) more of a gimmick and is why I like it. As for "singing?" I don't think so. It fits what he is doing but I would never aspire to be that.

I just knew I would have to explain that. One day, about 18 years ago, I was listening to the radio. They played a Guns n Roses song, followed by a Janis Joplin song. And then, the similarity struck me. But you don't have to agree. I just thought it was funny that they sounded similar, to me, at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think it's very important to make clear if the critique is based on personal preference in regards to aesthetics or on pure technique. Because how does ex. poor "technique" sound like?

This makes no sense.

Aesthetics, plasticity, is not optional on singing (not even talking about technique here, and yes, it IS part of technique).

This is starting to go in the direction of a long thread on the technique section with similar content, the super star thing vs need to train.

What causes the perception of singing, is exactly the things that translates into aesthetics, pitch precision, how the notes are attacked, the definition of the vowels, the homogeneity of the vocal production, the later two are translated into legatto.

The distance from each vowel, in regards to the definition of them, a constant part of the vocal production that causes a perception of continuity, of connection. Without it, singing becomes speaking, no matter if the target audience is a classical singer or just someone on the street, they both will perceive it as the same.

Its not a virtuose requirement, it is NECESSARY to allow your vocal production to be perceived as singing in the first place. Its one of the functions of auto-tune btw, thats why you can feed any kind of trash in the in and the out will be the normal auto-tune singing we all can spot miles away by now.

If perfect pitch on a melody line was possible without this, it would be perceived by a common listenner as pitchy. But pitch precision and legatto are very close to each other.

And then there is the question of musicianship, the musical language used. This is not subjective. Wrong language, as by the way I was pointed very recently in an also very specific way :), will be perceived by a listenner who is not aware of this as pitchy. What most define as pitchy is simply sounding wrong, sounding bad in regard to what you were trying to do. And if its perceived wrong, then its wrong! It should go without saying, but then the excuses kick in, you pass it on a spectral analyser, justify with the mics, weather, air quality and so on.

The question is, where will legatto come from. Not if, but how?

Will it be based on tensions? Will you just sacrifice all vowel definition to have it? Will you sacrifice energy and power? You can have legatto by adding a tongue tension for example, all vowels will share the hot potato quality. OR you can mumble the melody like a drunk guy, all vowels will share the mumbling. You can make it all nasal, all vowels will share the nasality. You can stuck it backwards and it will all sound round and muffled. All these things results in something similar to what is defined as legatto causes, but it just isnt it.

What in this is subject to personal tastes? Its all part of technique. Its all objective, nothing in this is subjective.

Now is the person doing this kind of bizarre alterations and sounding good? Cool, let him know, sounds good but its nasal (again something that was very detailed on the previous thread, if more info on the subject is required, I recommend reading it to the end). Now, sounding BAD, meanning all the previous things that renders plasticity are absent, and with all kinds of tensions and akward postures, then what is the deal? What can possibly come from insisting on something that has no quality to begin with? At best, a few things similar to the basics of technical trainning will be discovered, but without orientation to dismantle all the bad habits, its a fight you cant win.

And the really weird thing is having to discuss this on a forum that is centered on technique, since when does personality and unique qualities of a voice comes from a basic and primary thing as the quality of the vocal production? All voices are unique, by adding nasality or altering emission you are simply discarding the basic qualities and using something that everyone that never had trainning uses to sing once in a while in a karaoke, how original...

If on the other hand you learn how to control your voice, with plasticity and without having to struggle with it to deliver a vocal line, maybe, just maybe, it will be possible to focus on the good things all these artists have and that are light years away from a ridiculous thing like nasality or a cartoonish voice.

Technique is just that, a collection of procedures and practices that allows vocal production with plasticity and quality while retainning comfort and vocal health. There is no "tone" associated with technique other than the tone your voice have when free of unnecessary tampering. Its much more simple than all this search for magic and "tone".

Its not a matter of understanding and thinking about it, its a matter of finding someone that knows how to teach it and has results at a level you would desire to have for yourself, and then, trainning until you can deliver quality.

Without results, all the information in the world does not give you any knowledge on this matter. Its practical application, technique is not meant to explain how the human voice works, but to train it to do a task. Just like martial arts do not try to explain how the parts of your body are controled.

If "any" kind of result is acceptable, then its easy to write whole compediuns of the ultimate knowledge of the human voice, no matter what you achieve afterwards, it fits the initial proposal ;)

When high level of production is the goal, then things start to become slightly more problematic than just accept anything, and yes, EVERYONE can learn how to sing provided that is in good health.

A subjective thing would be a choice in the interpretation or your affinity with a particular style. Voice is cool, but this just isnt my thing. Or in that spot, you went too strong or weak, did not like it. Perfectly fine, nobody is forced to like all music that is out there, nor all your choices.

I am not talking about choices or styles here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aesthetics has an important role in both the singer and the listener.

Granted, basic technique is important and definitely contributes to longetivity.

Ronnie James Dio did not start out using rattle in his voice. Later in life, he added. And he was a professional singer for over 40 years. And in later years, still singing at monster rock festivals in spite of DYING from stomach cancer. And was planning another tour when the cancer finally won.

He claims he never had voice lessons. That he learned about breathing from playing horned instruments as a child and teenager.

And, even as a know-nothing guy, I can just about guarantee that no classical coach would consider his heavy metal rattle a proper sound to make and a quasi-classical instruction, even, let alone actual classical lessons would have allowed him to make that sound.

Different genres value different sounds. Can an "opera" singer sing a blues song? Yes. Will it sound like "blues"? Maybe, maybe not. Although, Pat Benetar, a classically trained opera singer before she got into rock, did put out a blues album. Or the other end, with Bryan Adams singing an aria in duet with Luciano Pavarotti. Bryan's voice is nothing but raspy, a tone that would never be allowed in opera.

So, if we can, as was suggested, affect different genres of singing can be adopted by varying nasality, for example, then is that not a singing emission that is "out of balance," by favoring more nasality than less?

As far as any kind of result being acceptable, well, that is allowed in rock and pop music. Hence, the disregard for range descriptions in pop and rock. If you are baritone and you can somehow make a C5, well then, rockonwhichyabadself. In pop and rock, dynamic range has a bigger role than just artistic range, which is located inside the dynamic range, whereas artistic range is more likely to be dominate in classical singing, at least far as I have learned about how roles are cast in opera, though I don't know nearly as much as I would like to know about it.

If all singing was just about beautiful clear tone, "Mad Dogs and Englishmen" would not have sold as many copies. And though I love and respect the Beatles, I still favor Joe Cocker's performance of "A Little Help from my Friends." I can't seem to get that "didact'ed" out of me. Probably a personal flaw.

:D

Now, there are some singers who have had voice training, especially later in their careers, such as James Hetfield. He has a specific warm-up before each show, using the chromatic 8. So, aesthetics does not have to eschew training. But I think training can support aesthetics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if we can, as was suggested, affect different genres of singing can be adopted by varying nasality, for example, then is that not a singing emission that is "out of balance," by favoring more nasality than less?

You cant, if you try to affect a genre by using nasality or even a "beautifull clear tone" without understanding the language used in the genre or style or whatever, you will just ruin the material, be it country music or opera.

And again, this is one step further from what I am talking about here, the "aesthetic" things I am refering to are not optional, and do not render a "tone" to a voice in anyway. Its the very definition of singing.

If it fails, then no matter how you are doing to NOT deliver, you cant justify yourself by saying that other artists use one similar part of the problems you have and deliver. The listenner does not care.

The only thing that matter to this is the result. The rest is just trying to talk your way into doing a decent job. Wont work.

And then I am back into the original question, since so much deviation from the subject is happening, I think I may have hit a quite sensitive spot here: Again, when you review something as good, would you be satisfied if you did a similar result with your own voice? Do you actually enjoyed listenning to it? The existance of material that fails to have the basic qualities of singing, all spoken or squeezed with a totally tampered voice, reviewed as good tells me immediately that its not the case.

OR, are you trying to be nice, be suportive and encourage development. Considering your own resuts and the social impact saying certain things may have? Considering what others are writing? Considering the emotional impact and so on?

Are you giving the truth or are you giving comfortable lies?

Just think about it and consider well what you are writing to others, it has much more effect than you imagine, and it can do much more harm on the long run than just some hard feelings. Just think a bit, no need for more answers or to discuss this, I think its quite complete as it is by now, I invite reading the whole thread to see how troublesome a simple thing as just answering honestly can become if you overthink it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...