Desert Island Part Deux?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Axver said:
That's an interesting idea, Screwtape. I'm not sure if it would work, if we'd be able to find a convenient way to group the compilations, but it could make things a bit more interesting and avoid a couple of unfortunate match-ups that we had last time.

Okay, what about this. We have everyone involved fill out a couple questions like:

What are the main three genres represented?
What is the overall mood, if any?
Is most of the playlist: loud, soft or in between?
What five adjectives would best describe the playlist?

They could send their answers with their playlists. This would naturally separate the playlists in different categories.

Would that work?
 
Last time around, we had two CDs perfectly timed at 80:00. Can anyone here get something in at 2:40:00 exactly this time? :wink:
 
Screwtape2 said:
Okay, what about this. We have everyone involved fill out a couple questions like:

What are the main three genres represented?
What is the overall mood, if any?
Is most of the playlist: loud, soft or in between?
What five adjectives would best describe the playlist?

They could send their answers with their playlists. This would naturally separate the playlists in different categories.

Would that work?

Hmm, I like the idea, but I fear it may be a bit too difficult, especially if we end up having an abundance of compilations of one particular type, and organising them would be especially hard with the repechage idea. Sticking with just randomly drawing names makes things easier.

I'd like to know what other people think about this though, as I don't want to discard it.
 
I think if a couple people come up with ideas on how to divide them it could work. Say, you, LMP and I. I mean three people might have three different ideas on where to put things. I don't know, just wanted to add that.


By the way, if we go through with my idea it might make the matchups a little more fair and might remove the need for the repechages. I'll leave it up to you and everyone else.
 
Hmm. In some ways, having like tracklisting vs like tracklisting might actually be better, in that the tracklistings will be competing on an equal footing and it will be a case of "who can make a better upbeat epic prog compilation?" instead of something bizarre like brutal death metal vs folk.

I'm still not sure quite what direction I want to go with. I'm no help. I do want to stick with repechages though, because if you put in effort and get kicked out immediately, it is nice to have a second chance to possibly get yourself back in the game.
 
Why not have similiar albums compete in the qualifying rounds then go with my plan for the tourney itself? It's the best of both worlds. The top two of each group get in intially.

For example:
Group One #1 vs. #4 (QR 1)
Group One #2 vs. #3 (QR 2)

The winners go into the tourney drawing while the losers go into the outside bracket drawing.
 
You could categorize the compilations based on the decade the bulk of the music on each compilation came from. Then you could have 60s-heavy comps, 70s-heavy comps, 80s-heavy comps, 90s-heavy comps, etc.
 
namkcuR said:
You could categorize the compilations based on the decade the bulk of the music on each compilation came from. Then you could have 60s-heavy comps, 70s-heavy comps, 80s-heavy comps, 90s-heavy comps, etc.

Hehe, that totally wouldn't work with my list. I like screwtape's idea though. If someone wants to do all the work needed to make those kinds of matching decisions, it might work. Would sure be difficult though.
 
Axver said:
Last time around, we had two CDs perfectly timed at 80:00. Can anyone here get something in at 2:40:00 exactly this time? :wink:

I actually did, not kidding. :lol:

I think it should be divided between genres too, or just similarities.
 
Screwtape2 said:
Why not have similiar albums compete in the qualifying rounds then go with my plan for the tourney itself? It's the best of both worlds. The top two of each group get in intially.

For example:
Group One #1 vs. #4 (QR 1)
Group One #2 vs. #3 (QR 2)

The winners go into the tourney drawing while the losers go into the outside bracket drawing.

I fear this is going to become too much work. I'm getting confused! Would you be able to do a diagram at all of what you think would be best?
 
LemonMacPhisto said:
I actually did, not kidding. :lol:

You'll probably win again too, you prick. :mad: :wink:

I think that if we do divide this up by genres/similarities, we shouldn't really go by dominant decade. I mean, a nineties-heavy compilation by me will sound nothing like one by, say, namkcuR or Brau. I don't believe in grouping music by decades. To me, the 90s and 00s especially have blurred into each other.
 
Axver said:

To me, the 90s and 00s especially have blurred into each other.

I couldn't disagree more; The 90s was dominated by darker(both in image and in musical and lyrical style), more introspective bands - Nirvana/Pearl Jam/Alice In Chains/Soundgarden/Smashing Pumpkins/Nine Inch Nails/Radiohead/Rage Against The Machine/90s U2/90s R.E.M./BloodSugarSexMagic-One Hot Minute-era RHCP/Jane's Addiction/"Load" era Metallica/Bush/Weezer/Foo Fighters/Marlyn Manson/etc - while the 00s have been dominated by teen-pop - Backstreet Boys, N'Sync, Justin Timberlake, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Jessica Simpson, etc - lighter(in comparison to the 90s bands I listed) rock - The Killers, Keane, Coldplay, Snow Patrol, Maroon 5, etc - American Idol winners, and Hip-hop.
 
namkcuR said:
I couldn't disagree more; The 90s was dominated by darker(both in image and in musical and lyrical style), more introspective bands - Nirvana/Pearl Jam/Alice In Chains/Soundgarden/Smashing Pumpkins/Nine Inch Nails/Radiohead/Rage Against The Machine/90s U2/90s R.E.M./BloodSugarSexMagic-One Hot Minute-era RHCP/Jane's Addiction/"Load" era Metallica/Bush/Weezer/Foo Fighters/Marlyn Manson/etc - while the 00s have been dominated by teen-pop - Backstreet Boys, N'Sync, Justin Timberlake, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Jessica Simpson, etc - lighter(in comparison to the 90s bands I listed) rock - The Killers, Keane, Coldplay, Snow Patrol, Maroon 5, etc - American Idol winners, and Hip-hop.

I tend to think of that teen-pop stuff as being second half of the nineties. That's when crap like the Spice Girls, Backstreet Boys, and Britney Spears hit their peak.

This does go to show how little attention I pay to the mainstream though. Because it was in the late eighties and early nineties that really exciting stuff started to happen: progressive rock was revived, Dream Theater's Images And Words album in 1992 essentially spawned progressive metal, and various styles of metal were fully fleshed out, e.g. doom metal, death metal, and black metal. Since then, the genres have been evolving. Neo-prog rock has developed, pursuing the lighter side of things, while progressive death metal has been developed on the heavier side. When I think of who was great in the late nineties and who's great now, it's often a lot of the same bands, e.g. Porcupine Tree, Dream Theater, Opeth, Agalloch.

So that's my perspective on things.
 
Okay, listen carefully.

The albums are divided into six groups.

Each group has it's own little playoff (1v4, 2v3)

These are the qualifying rounds.

The two winners from each group advance into the tourney.

This fills twelve of the sixteen spots in the tourney.

The losers go into a separate bracket.

*The four teams that were closest in their group matchups play each other. The winners get into the tourney.

The other eight teams play each other.

The four winners play each other.

Those two winners get the final two spots in the tourney.

The sixteen teams in the tourney are seeded by random order.

G1 winners in tourney
G2 winners in tourney
G3 winners in tourney
G4 winners in tourney
G5 winners in tourney
G6 winners in tourney

Top 4 Losers: winners in tourney

L1vL2
L3vL4 Winners play each other, winner in tourney

L5vL6
L7vL8 Winners play each other, winner in tourney

TOURNEY: Random Seeding

It is pretty simple when you look at it.
 
I really like Screwtape's idea too, except that I feel the repechage is too long and drawn out. It's nearly the length of the entire competition itself!
 
LemonMacPhisto said:
two rounds can go on simultanously?

That would work.

How long do you plan to run the rounds, and will qualifying rounds/repechages be shorter than the full rounds?

I'll leave this sort of stuff up to you as you'll be running it, but I'll need to know it for one of my posts before the tournament gets under way.
 
Axver said:
I really like Screwtape's idea too, except that I feel the repechage is too long and drawn out. It's nearly the length of the entire competition itself!

If everyone has the first round fresh in their minds couldn't we have three matchups available for voting over two days? Wouldn't that put the final six teams in, in just four days?
 
Screwtape2 said:
If everyone has the first round fresh in their minds couldn't we have three matchups available for voting over two days? Wouldn't that put the final six teams in, in just four days?

Yeah, we'll get through them quick-fire, that'll work.

By the way, I suspect you, liamcool, and I will all end up in the same group. :wink:

(My collection is less prog than last time though, and I've eliminated the metal aspect.)
 
Axver said:


That would work.

How long do you plan to run the rounds, and will qualifying rounds/repechages be shorter than the full rounds?

I'll leave this sort of stuff up to you as you'll be running it, but I'll need to know it for one of my posts before the tournament gets under way.

once again I agree with Screwtape.

a 2 day voting period is perfect, plus simultaneous voting.
 
OK, so now we need a deadline for submissions, and we need to make a calendar of how this will go down.
 
Axver said:
OK, so now we need a deadline for submissions, and we need to make a calendar of how this will go down.

I think the deadline should be the end of the month, with the actual competition starting a week later.

Then work the dates out systematically.
 
End of the month? That's a pretty bloody long time away! I was thinking of the 15th, heh. But that does give people more than enough time to upload their files and everything.
 
Axver said:
End of the month? That's a pretty bloody long time away! I was thinking of the 15th, heh. But that does give people more than enough time to upload their files and everything.
:yes: I gotta lotta work to do this week....the end of the month would be grand........but i would be happy with say....the 22nd JAN, that's 2 weeks from now!

The new rules are cool! Not sure about the whole catergorising thing will go as with what Srewtape suggested....i don't really want to do that...personally i think it should be up to the voter to determine that for themselves whether they prefer a certain genre as to another.......i mean there would be variety anyways on the tracklist i can only imagine.

The losers having a play off sounds good....but guessing how much work is involved with this comp, i will be happy for what you guys decide on anyway.

:up:
 
OK, I've got my iTunes mix down to 2.6 hours and I've put the tracks in the order I think I want. I'm doing a test run to check the flow right now.

I think I will enter this thing after all.

I like the idea of only one song per artist. It's made my list a lot more varied and interesting, but I still didn't have any trouble filling it entirely with songs I absolutely adore.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom