Well, I decided to go with LMP as I feel his list is a bit more diverse. I really feel both tracklists are very B&C-esque, to the point of almost being cliche. Whoever wins this will probably win the final.
LemonMelon said:
Take 4 groups of 4. I agree with the the repechage system, and I think it's very useful, but I've never thought the tourney was too long-winded. Heck, it's almost over already. I can't see shortening it helping matters. I'm just another opinion in the crowd, but I must say that I prize thoroughness above all (though I suppose agreeing with the current 160 minute system would seem contrary to that).
Yeah, it seems to have come to a conclusion all of a sudden. It felt like the qualifying rounds, repechages, and heats dragged on for-bloody-ever, but now we've only got three rounds to go. I'd really like to get rid of some of that long-winded earlier process though. I fear some people have lost interest and I think this has been manifested in the fact that early on, people were downloading the tracklists and listening before they voted, while now, people seem to be more voting on what they know. I feel Screwtape's quarter final in particular was marred by that - or maybe that was the only time people were brave enough to admit it.
Screwtape2 said:
As for who gets in, it is really up to which people prefer: semifinalists get first dibs or first come, first serve. In the end it is what the people what.
My inclination is to have first come, first served, but in case of a lot of applicants, we might have to dismiss some past contestants in favour of some new entrants. Perhaps enforce a quota of a certain amount of newbies/people who haven't yet progressed far.
Oh, and with regards to my prog tracklisting, I've managed to get it down to 4 hours, 9 minutes, 2 seconds, with 31 songs! It looks like once I'm done, I'll have 25% less songs than I had in this current tournament, despite 80 minutes more runtime!