So the Spitfire Audio Westworld scoring competition went well... there's a riot going on in the YouTube comments ;-)

[machinesworking]

was the whole thing a joke then? cos the winner was fuckin terrible, not even funny really...

Even better, he had worked on a project that one of the judges worked on.

Most contests like this have strict rules about this. Spitfire doubled down on their mistake. First off the score is terrible, the only positive thing to say is at least they tried to do something different, secondly they allowed a person with previous business dealings with a judge to participate.

I think this is what really blows, it's too easy to wonder if the judge wasn't influenced by this. It's why they don't allow this normally in contests, charges of nepotism are too easy to consider.

[Dirtgrain]

The winner has stated that the judge does not know him, that he worked in a room doing menial work and did not interact with the judge. I get that people see it as fishy, and maybe next time there will be a stipulation, although that might exclude a lot of potential participants. In the music business, people overlap all over the place.

[machinesworking]

The winner has stated that the judge does not know him, that he worked in a room doing menial work and did not interact with the judge. I get that people see it as fishy, and maybe next time there will be a stipulation, although that might exclude a lot of potential participants. In the music business, people overlap all over the place.

The problem of nepotism is one of transparency. Overlap simply isn't that much when we're talking worldwide. Being barred from entering a contest isn't a life changing event, but having your company be soundly trashed for the possibility of nepotism is. They could have saved themselves a world of hurt if they hadn't picked such a risky (lets' be honest, terrible) interpretation, with some ties to a judge, no matter how tenuous.

[vurt]

...its a shit business.

[elxsound]

The winner has stated that the judge does not know him, that he worked in a room doing menial work and did not interact with the judge. I get that people see it as fishy, and maybe next time there will be a stipulation, although that might exclude a lot of potential participants. In the music business, people overlap all over the place.

The problem of nepotism is one of transparency. Overlap simply isn't that much when we're talking worldwide. Being barred from entering a contest isn't a life changing event, but having your company be soundly trashed for the possibility of nepotism is. They could have saved themselves a world of hurt if they hadn't picked such a risky (lets' be honest, terrible) interpretation, with some ties to a judge, no matter how tenuous.

But that just makes the decision a political one, which is not an improvement in the process... IMO of course.

I get that people have favorites amongst the entries and many don't like the winning entry, but IMO all of the winning/runner up picks were done very well. I didn't hear anything outright unique but nobody said that was a requirement to win.

11,000 is a lot to go through but I'm sure they eliminated all the non-polished (not mastered or mixed well entries) quickly followed next by ones that were stylistically not what they envisioned followed by further eliminating to just those ones that sounded professional and embodied what they were expecting to hear.

Sometimes getting a gig is not completely about being creative but satisfying the expectation of the person who's hiring (or in this case the people judging).

Vurt's right... It's a shit business.

[VariKusBrainZ]

I dont think the lack of creativity was an issue, it was the utter juxtaposition of the music and the scene.
I was laughing as I watched because to me it was completely inappropriate to the point of taking the piss and for me it really made the scene hilarious. But obviously I knew this piece had won which added to the comedic effect. A tense action scene that morphed from the expected stereotypical orchestration into a cheesy chip tune.

And then there was the fact he broke one of the rules in terms of what was allowed to be manipulated.

[kelvyn]

Just listened... Oops! If that’s the best I would hate to think what the other thousands were like.

[Dirtgrain]

I don't watch the show, so I wonder is there comedy in it? I have seen the older Westworld movie with the robotic cowboys in an amusement park (IIRC), and it was pretty cheesy. I could see the chiptune parts being an echo of that (no idea if the composer or judges had this thought).

How many braaahm sounds, Taiko drum barrages, and staccato swells did the judges have to listen to? I would like to hear from them any epiphanies they had in wading through all the entries.

[Dirtgrain]

And then there was the fact he broke one of the rules in terms of what was allowed to be manipulated.

This is problematic with Spitfire. I can see how the changes he made with the video clip's sound would give him an advantage, making the submission sound more polished, integrated (I don't know that he intended to break/bend the rules). How that is allowed for the winner when the rules said no changes is fishy.

[elxsound]

I dont think the lack of creativity was an issue, it was the utter juxtaposition of the music and the scene.
I was laughing as I watched because to me it was completely inappropriate to the point of taking the piss and for me it really made the scene hilarious. But obviously I knew this piece had won which added to the comedic effect. A tense action scene that morphed from the expected stereotypical orchestration into a cheesy chip tune.

And then there was the fact he broke one of the rules in terms of what was allowed to be manipulated.

I thought the chip tune was definitely overstated. The reintroduction of strings was too reminiscent of cheesy takes on stereotyped 80s Russian themes for villainous characters, but the scene itself (without music) was comedic.

The scene is cliched to a fault and I think the judges must have agreed with that sentiment enough to pick a song that makes fun/light of it.

If you go epic and stay epic, it becomes boring. If you choose mystical, then it doesn't align with use of "foul" language.

But if you look at all the changes throughout, from the onset, to first chip tune, the explosions.. even the motorcycle had its own theme. All of that was pretty tough to pull off in one cohesive piece.

I don't care for it, but again its done well. If I were watching it as a viewer, I'd accept it and laugh as I did while watching it. Its funny.

I honestly don't know. I think its just good to see how many wanted a shot at this. 11,000 is quite a bit of people. Maybe its because of the lockdowns everywhere but that is a high number.
Comedic... definitely.

[No_Use]

Just remembered there's another kink to this - one of the rules was that you weren't to amend the clip in any way other than to add your music and the winning entry had made changes to some of the existing sound, adding effects etc.

It seems like the original terms and conditions for this competition are no longer available on the Spitfire website but here they are mirrored on waybackmachine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200507065 ... onditions/

You may not modify the Westworld Clip in any way.

[elxsound]

Just remembered there's another kink to this - one of the rules was that you weren't to amend the clip in any way other than to add your music and the winning entry had made changes to some of the existing sound, adding effects etc.

It seems like the original terms and conditions for this competition are no longer available on the Spitfire website but here they are mirrored on waybackmachine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200507065 ... onditions/

You may not modify the Westworld Clip in any way.

Context matters here... because the section you quoted from, does not reference modification as it relates to a contest submission, but instead to your use of the clip. In other words... Don't take this clip, chop it up and reuse it in your future visual arts display.

As between you and HBO, HBO retains all right, title and interest in and to the Westworld Clip. HBO grants you a limited license to use the Westworld Clip solely to create your entry and for no other purpose. You may not modify the Westworld Clip in any way. In no event will you obtain any rights in the Westworld Clip. Except for the limited rights granted by HBO, HBO reserves all rights in and to the Westworld Clip.

[empphryio]

The winner has stated that the judge does not know him, that he worked in a room doing menial work and did not interact with the judge. I get that people see it as fishy, and maybe next time there will be a stipulation, although that might exclude a lot of potential participants. In the music business, people overlap all over the place.

Well then, if he said so it must be true. I certainly can't think of any reason at all why he would lie.
Also I agree that the judges/director probably know/have worked with the vast majority of the 11,000 entries. Really good points you've made. Thanks for clearing this up for us.

[No_Use]

Just remembered there's another kink to this - one of the rules was that you weren't to amend the clip in any way other than to add your music and the winning entry had made changes to some of the existing sound, adding effects etc.

It seems like the original terms and conditions for this competition are no longer available on the Spitfire website but here they are mirrored on waybackmachine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200507065 ... onditions/

You may not modify the Westworld Clip in any way.

Context matters here... because the section you quoted from, does not reference modification as it relates to a contest submission, but instead to your use of the clip. In other words... Don't take this clip, chop it up and reuse it in your future visual arts display.

As between you and HBO, HBO retains all right, title and interest in and to the Westworld Clip. HBO grants you a limited license to use the Westworld Clip solely to create your entry and for no other purpose. You may not modify the Westworld Clip in any way. In no event will you obtain any rights in the Westworld Clip. Except for the limited rights granted by HBO, HBO reserves all rights in and to the Westworld Clip.

Well, I understand it differently.
Because if it was really only referincing the use of the clip, "In other words... Don't take this clip, chop it up and reuse it in your future visual arts display. " is already covered with

HBO grants you a limited license to use the Westworld Clip solely to create your entry and for no other purpose.

So the sentence about not modyfying the clip would have been obsolete imo.

[elxsound]

Just remembered there's another kink to this - one of the rules was that you weren't to amend the clip in any way other than to add your music and the winning entry had made changes to some of the existing sound, adding effects etc.

It seems like the original terms and conditions for this competition are no longer available on the Spitfire website but here they are mirrored on waybackmachine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200507065 ... onditions/

You may not modify the Westworld Clip in any way.

Context matters here... because the section you quoted from, does not reference modification as it relates to a contest submission, but instead to your use of the clip. In other words... Don't take this clip, chop it up and reuse it in your future visual arts display.

As between you and HBO, HBO retains all right, title and interest in and to the Westworld Clip. HBO grants you a limited license to use the Westworld Clip solely to create your entry and for no other purpose. You may not modify the Westworld Clip in any way. In no event will you obtain any rights in the Westworld Clip. Except for the limited rights granted by HBO, HBO reserves all rights in and to the Westworld Clip.

Well, I understand it differently.
Because if it was really only referincing the use of the clip, "In other words... Don't take this clip, chop it up and reuse it in your future visual arts display. " is already covered with

HBO grants you a limited license to use the Westworld Clip solely to create your entry and for no other purpose.

So the sentence about not modyfying the clip would have been obsolete imo.

Did you not notice that the excerpt you pulled from that paragraph is sandwiched between statements all seemingly redundant, but which all state in several ways that you cannot claim license or ownership to it?

That’s not a coincidence. Legal terms often state and restate things for the purpose of providing clarity in effort to avoid future litigation resultant from ambiguity.

And if you look back at the terms, did you see all the neatly arranged paragraphs?

That’s also not mistake.

Again context matters greatly.