Be a Reviewer and get Free Synths

[kevvvvv]

Bruce Satinover, who many of you will know as x-bruce, has been running MusicFAQ for some time now.

www.musicfaq.net

MFAQ has expanded and he now needs an additional reviewer or two.

- Could you write reviews of the latest plugs as good as those in Computer Music or Sound On Sound?

- Is your writing clear and attractive to read?

- Are you knowledgeable of the plug scene? (know the difference between DSP Discovery and the Blue Mercury One? Voxengo vs Kjaerhus?)

- Can you produce finished word docs with pix and text?

If you think you’ve got the style and the know-how to be on Bruce’s team, then mail him a 500-1000 word review of one of your fave plugs, plus a few words on why you think you’re up to the job.

Reliability and an easy-going nature count for a lot, as does writing experience.

Here’s what you'll get in return:

- Free plugs to keep.

- More free plugs to keep.

- Expect to be asked to do 4 reviews a year, but more if you’re up to it.

The plugs are NFR (not for resale) so you can’t sell them, but otherwise they’re yours to keep and use.

Interested? Write to bruce at x_bruce@yahoo.com

[vurt]

synths rock!woohoo!


will that do,send free stuff to vurt@hehe

[Meffy]

Hmm, tempting. I'm willing and can write acceptably well... but very rarely do I write up software I don't like. :-) Not a bias, mind you -- it's just that programs I wouldn't care for rarely make it past my initial researches, so if I use a synth (or host, etc.) I probably either (1) like it or (2) love it.

No way I can pretend to be an advanced enough musician to really put plugs through their paces, and I haven't a good enough ear to pass quality judgements that potential buyers could depend on. And there's also the fact that my tastes in sound are decidedly antiquated, heh... =^_^= No, I'd better leave this for younger, hotter paws than mine.

[shamann]

Hmm, tempting. I'm willing and can write acceptably well... but very rarely do I write up software I don't like. Not a bias, mind you -- it's just that programs I wouldn't care for rarely make it past my initial researches, so if I use a synth (or host, etc.) I probably either (1) like it or (2) love it.

No way I can pretend to be an advanced enough musician to really put plugs through their paces, and I haven't a good enough ear to pass quality judgements that potential buyers could depend on. And there's also the fact that my tastes in sound are decidedly antiquated, heh... =^_^= No, I'd better leave this for younger, hotter paws than mine.

Actually, if you're up to the task, Meffy, it sounds like you might be a good fit. I've spoken to Bruce in the past about writing stuff for him (and to my discredit, neglected to get back to him after a while). I opted against doing it as I just don't have the time to reliably commit, but I looked over the musicFAQ content a great deal to suss out style concerns, so here are some observations on what might be required:

- The general tenor of reviews should be positive. If you hate the plugin, just don't bother writing about it. If you have problems with it, be fair and try to portray to some degree its strengths. If Bruce is expanding content, this may change to include negative stuff, as I'm not sure if you are required to write a review once given a free copy.

- you have to be able to write in detail about synths. As Bruce explained, you have to show commitment to exploring the software to justify developers giving it away for free.

- your writing style should fit in with the general style on the site. Probably an unspoken rule, but use Bruce's reviews as a model. Look at DevonB's reviews in Grooves magazine and at Traxmusic as another example. This is partially where they lost me, as my style would be far more anecdotal, as I have little interest in reviews that enumerate features at length. Taking Grooves as an example, I far prefer the reviewing style of Har, more about using it and the end result, and less about what's under the hood. YMMV.

Bruce is a good guy, and musicFAQ always strikes me as having a lot of potential, so I hope folk consider joining in.

[jens]

I would love to - especially as the reason why I'm not writing any reviews here at kvr is the hilariously and annoyingly small maximum number of characters.

However I doubt that my ability to adequately express myself in English is up to the task.

[Meffy]

shamann: Hm, well... *dither* I'll consider it. I could always, I dunno, try to develop a bit of professionalism or something. :-D

jens: You mean, your ability adequately to express yourself in English. Shame on you, splitting the infinitive! Why, about 0.3% of American English teachers would recognize the error, and a fifth of those would give you a bad mark for it (it's a fairly silly rule carried over from Latin into English). ;-) In other words: Your English is just fine. Either that or Babelfish has got a whole lot better lately.

[7XL]

- The general tenor of reviews should be positive. If you hate the plugin, just don't bother writing about it. If you have problems with it, be fair and try to portray to some degree its strengths. If Bruce is expanding content, this may change to include negative stuff, as I'm not sure if you are required to write a review once given a free copy.

- you have to be able to write in detail about synths. As Bruce explained, you have to show commitment to exploring the software to justify developers giving it away for free.

WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

So people should not be told the truth?? Is that what you're saying?

If something does not work properly or just doesn't work as advertised people should not know about it? How can you write in detail about something and not include it's problems and/or faults. I don't need glorified reviews just to get free software, I need the truth, as do the general software buying population.

To those that will be writing these reviews, be honest and fair. If something sucks, say so, but do it in well mannered and intelligent manner.

[Meffy]

Sounds like this covers that case:

If you have problems with it, be fair and try to portray to some degree its strengths.

About "try" Yoda might argue but less wise than he I am.

P.S.: I still reckon I can't do this job justice. Not enough of a musician, just a hobbyist and not a good one even so. :-) I'll leave it to those who know how to work those thangs the way a pro would.

For the right people, sounds like a good opportunity.

[jens]

jens: You mean, your ability adequately to express yourself in English. Shame on you, splitting the infinitive! Why, about 0.3% of American English teachers would recognize the error, and a fifth of those would give you a bad mark for it (it's a fairly silly rule carried over from Latin into English). In other words: Your English is just fine. Either that or Babelfish has got a whole lot better lately.

thanks

I usually feel terribly handicapped when I try to write about slightly more complex things than...

...actually I feel almost always handicapped.

[shamann]

WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

So people should not be told the truth?? Is that what you're saying?

If something does not work properly or just doesn't work as advertised people should not know about it? How can you write in detail about something and not include it's problems and/or faults. I don't need glorified reviews just to get free software, I need the truth, as do the general software buying population.

To those that will be writing these reviews, be honest and fair. If something sucks, say so, but do it in well mannered and intelligent manner.

Not sure exactly where you got that, as Meffy notes I did mention about trying to be fairminded. I think the point is that musicFAQ is meant to be a bit of a celebration of good musical tools, so let someone else write about the crap.

For instance, if they don't like Waldorf Attack, they just wouldn't write about it, and instead write a feature on something they do like, like DR-008. I've never seen Bruce shy away from saying what he didn't like, I think he'd just rather talk about what he likes.

[droolmaster0]

Bruce Satinover, who many of you will know as x-bruce, has been running MusicFAQ for some time now.

www.musicfaq.net

MFAQ has expanded and he now needs an additional reviewer or two.

- Could you write reviews of the latest plugs as good as those in Computer Music or Sound On Sound?

- Is your writing clear and attractive to read?

- Are you knowledgeable of the plug scene? (know the difference between DSP Discovery and the Blue Mercury One? Voxengo vs Kjaerhus?)

- Can you produce finished word docs with pix and text?

If you think you’ve got the style and the know-how to be on Bruce’s team, then mail him a 500-1000 word review of one of your fave plugs, plus a few words on why you think you’re up to the job.

Reliability and an easy-going nature count for a lot, as does writing experience.

Here’s what you'll get in return:

- Free plugs to keep.

- More free plugs to keep.

- Expect to be asked to do 4 reviews a year, but more if you’re up to it.

The plugs are NFR (not for resale) so you can’t sell them, but otherwise they’re yours to keep and use.

Interested? Write to bruce at x_bruce@yahoo.com

If I'm not mistaken NFR copies are not only not for resale, but (at least in some cases) are not entitled to the same upgrades/updates that purchased copies are. I know this to be the case, at least for Virsyn, since once I accidentally took home the nfr copy instead of the my copy, and this turned out to be the case. Or else, why not just distribute a regular version?

[kevvvvv]

dm0

If I'm not mistaken NFR copies are not only not for resale, but (at least in some cases) are not entitled to the same upgrades/updates that purchased copies are. I know this to be the case, at least for Virsyn, since once I accidentally took home the nfr copy instead of the my copy, and this turned out to be the case. Or else, why not just distribute a regular version?

You know .. you're probably right.

NFRs are a waste of time

[DevonB]

- your writing style should fit in with the general style on the site. Probably an unspoken rule, but use Bruce's reviews as a model. Look at DevonB's reviews in Grooves magazine and at Traxmusic as another example. This is partially where they lost me, as my style would be far more anecdotal, as I have little interest in reviews that enumerate features at length. Taking Grooves as an example, I far prefer the reviewing style of Har, more about using it and the end result, and less about what's under the hood. YMMV.

...and my writing style is TOTALLY different for Recording Magazine. It depends what the editor wants. Personally, I like feature lists, sprinkled with interesting tid-bits about why this is better than that, etc. Mostly following the industry 'norm' here. Some people are better and rambling on about features, some are better at rambling about 'in use'.

But make no mistake, if you do reviews right, they are a LOT of hard work, long hours, and not as much about play as you'd like to believe. It's nice having a lot of toys to play with, but when you've got 7 reviews due in a few weeks, for example, there is very little music writing going on and a lot of article writing going on instead.

Devon

[bduffy]

I'm applying for the gig; screw it, I love to write, I love gear and I love exploring said gear. And I get a lot of downtime at work.

[shamann]

...and my writing style is TOTALLY different for Recording Magazine. It depends what the editor wants...they are a LOT of hard work, long hours, and not as much about play as you'd like to believe.

Wasn't criticizing, just noting an observation on style. I'm not sure if that second bit was aimed at me or not, but as a professional writer myself, I wouldn't suggest otherwise.