Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum Online recital reply etiquette, your thoughts?

With the next upcoming ABF online recital just a few days away, I am once again wondering how best to reply to all the fantastic submissions that are sent in.

To be honest, I face this dilema every time we have an online recital as I just don't really know how to properly respond to everyone; here's why.

First off, I am aware that everyone who submits a piano piece for others to listen to and enjoy have put a lot of hard work and effort into their music.

Sure, there are varying degrees of talent displayed in these submissions, but that is to be expected as there is a wide experience level as well as ability range.

My dilema:

I really want to personally thank and comment on each individual performance and acknowledge the performers for a job well done; however, after 10, 15 , 20 or so replies, my comments start to read (and possibly seem) a bit "canned" or unsincere as I start repeating the exact same comments over and over again.

The fact is I really do appreciate all the submissions and attempt to "personalize" each reply, but again, they all come out just a slight variation of "good job", or "it sounded great" or whatever.

So, my question to everyone is should we give a general "thanks for a great job" directed to all participants?, or should we give an in depth reply to each individual participant?, or should we possibly consider commending everyone who participated but make an idividual reply to those specific performances that stood out to us?

I guess what I am really trying to ask is how do we tactfully (and sincerely) reply to everyone without the comments appearing like a repetitive standard issue replies just altered to seem different for each participant?

Does this make sense?

Also, what happens if we start getting 50 entries?, or 80?, or 100 or more??. Personally replying to each individual may become a part time job!!

I would really like to hear suggestions from everyone on how to properly give all the recital participants the credit and feedback that they deserve without it becoming to impersonal or cumbersome at the same time.

Hopefully this post did'nt come across in the wrong way as I am just trying to come up with some type of system or method to best respond to everyone while being able to accomodate more and more recital participants in the future.

Just a possible suggestion: How about we consider acknowledging everyones submisions as a whole and then make personal individual comments on the pieces that really stood out for you in one way or another.

Other suggestions wanted!!

I would think at 80 or more submissions, it might be a good idea to group the recital into 3 categories.

Under 2 years experience
2-5 years
5+ years

Or something along those lines. As for replying to everyone, people can do that for one of the groups, without feeling obligated to address all participants in all groups. That's my idea but if it grows that big the recital coordinators will probably need more help too.

I think people should make comments on those pieces they feel they need to say something about. Otherwise, we would have loads of comments, and it would take so long to read all of them...
But, actually, it's a recital, and people want their submissions commented.

If the number of submissions are large you might want to break up the recital dates then also. Each group would have their recital in a separate month, e.g. Group A in January, Group B in February, Group C in March, Group A in April, etc.

With a smaller group each month it would be easier to respond in detail. You could create groups A, B, C however you wanted, by years of experience, or even random groupings.

You could then also have a different coordinator for each group to help spread that work around also.

Or the categories can be by music genre

Classical
Non-classical

or whatever.

I always thought commenting about each piece was ludicrous, at least after the first recital it seemed that way to me. I only comment on the pieces that really move me emotionally or when I felt a really good "attaboy" was deserved. A broader "job well done to everyone" seems more appropriate and certainly less tedious to read.

I think that in an effort to say something that hasn't been said already, words get twisted and meanings are misinterpreted. Sometimes the less said, the better.

Good questions, super-hunky. I'm still feeling guilty because I never did get around to commenting on the last 10 or so submissions in Recital #4. (It was the end of the semester and my daughter's birthday and Christmas prep all happening at once!)

On the other hand, I'm worried that if I only comment individually about the ones that stand out to me (which would include any David Nevue or Einaudi submissions ), it may come across as playing favorites, and I don't want to hurt the feelings of the people whose pieces I didn't comment on.

Maybe this time I will write out all my comments in Word first, and only post them when and if I get through everybody's, so it will be an all or nothing kind of deal.

Or, if I don't have time to do everybody, maybe I'll just comment on the first-time Order of the Red Dot recipients.

Grapple, grapple.

In all, though, this is an EXCELLENT problem to be facing, as it means the on-line recital is thriving!

SH: My thoughts exactly. :rolleyes: How many ways can one say: "Great performance." "Truly inspiring." "Wow" and "Good Job." As you said, it all seems to sound meaningless after a while, not to mention trite and forced.

I have absolutely no idea on how to solve this problem (if it should be considered as one).

But I do so enjoy listening to each and every submission and would certainly want to offer encouragement and congratulations to those who worked so hard and stood tall to that "red button."

So...what to do??

Kathleen

This is a tough one for me as well. Even though I've never submitted anything to the recital, on the one recording that I did submit, I was really grateful for the comments since, as SH pointed out, it is a bit of work to post a recording. The funny thing is, I expect reading through a series of "I really liked it" and "good job" posts was probably tedious for everyone else but was very rewarding to me.

However, in the recital with a larger number of submissions "great job everybody" doesn't quite do justice to the effort involved but at the same time commenting on all of them sounds canned even if meant with all sincerity. Only commenting on ones that are "standouts" would perhaps tend to over reward more accomplished players i.e., do you recognize effort or results?

i like deepelem has a great way of doing it. separate the recital into 3 different ones. i love hearing everyone play, and i usually take notes as i am listening. so it makes it easy. i figure if people spent the time to play it, they deserve a comment, and if i have time to listen i have time to take notes as well. just my 2 cents onit. alot of times my comments do sound redundant,but the group of people that participate, seem to always sound wonderful. but i still like to personally comment regardless:)

Phew, I'm glad to hear that my thoughts are comming across without sounding like I am too lazy to respond to everyone as thats not it at all.

What I want to avoid is for members to not feel "guilty" about not responding to each and every single submission.

The reason for this is longevity for the entire online recital process. Should replying to every single participant become to cumbersome to accomplish as well as for others to read, this could ultimately prove counterproductive for the entire event.

What I am trying to accomplish may be impossible, but here are some key points I would like to get across:

1.) Somehow, let everyone single participant know that their efforts are very much appreciated. (possibly by confirming that ALL submissions were heard by everyone listening).

2.) Avoid any "guilty" feelings regarding not personally responding to every single participant.

3.) Avoid reader fatigue by reading the same-ish similar comments over and over and over again.

4.) Acknowlege those specific performances that stood out for you and more importantly...why!.

Also, we have not reached the point yet where the recital has become to big to handle all at once, but that may be short lived.

A possible recital by category, i.e classical, new-age, contemporary, play by ear etc or by experience.... less than one year, 2-3, 4-5, over 5 etc is also a very good suggestion as a possibility in the future.

Just a little pre planning can keep this recital a successful ongoing event for years to come.

Please keep the suggestions comming.

I had this problem last time. I was grateful to everyone who commented on my recording, but I just couldn't think of what to say about everyone else's. I started writing some comments, but they started to seem trite. I'm going to try to do better for this recital.

I have the same problem when I go to a live concert -- I can never think of what to say to the performers. It's always so nice when people say something specific that shows they were really listening, but not so easy to do.

I always try to comment on anything I hear on the piano bar thread but I am so new to the piano that I can't comment on technique and have not heard any of the pieces before, nor some of the composers. That makes it even harder for me to find ways to comment as I limited to simply saying that I enjoyed listening.

I will not be commenting unless something really moves me because I simply don't have the experience to go into any detail. I apologise for this in advance because I think that if someone has 'put themselves out there', they will be wanting feedback. In that case, I wonder whether reading 'great job' 40 times would be even more disappointing than no comment at all?

You make some great points S-H. I am not able to participate in this recital but would rather read 1 comment from someone saying 'why' they liked my piece than reading many generic responses. However, as mentioned above, it is not easy to do that and it may just reward more accomplished players.

I think (logistics permitting) that splitting up the recital into experience would address many of these tricky issues.

Although I am not opposed to 3 (0r more) groups and/or one group a month, we need to remember these recitals are a lot of work for our mentors(Thanks again Bob).

I think I am going to take a "group" response this time:
I appreciate the effort and enjoyed hearing different versions. I have listened to submissions 1 through xxx and:
I found the following performances outstanding
I found the following performances inspiring
I am going to learn the following

You get the idea....

I also run out of things to say but feel not commenting on every one if you comment at all to be in bad taste, so last time I sent a few PMs but did not comment openly, which I now regret.

I agree- it's hard to find something new to say about each peice, but I tend to feel that if someone has submitted a piece, they deserve to hear something, even if it is just "Gee, that sounded very pretty!"

I think perhaps the dangers with only commenting on the things that stand out for you are:

1) You will tend to gravitate toward things you already like. If you are a New Age fan, you will focus on New Age sounding pieces and so on.

2) It leaves those that do not get a comment wondering if their piece was just not something that interested you, or was it really just bad?

Tough question, with no easy answer, I fear.

I think dividing by sub-groups such as classical, new-age, jazz, would be too cumbersome.

The problem (?) as I see it is this: The number of participants is growing (by leaps and bounds) and this is super. But it is difficult to listen to all of them and, at the same time, give thoughtful, honest and helpful criticism without being overly repetitious with our comments.

What about this?? Right now, we have 4 recitals a year. Perhaps (and this is just a suggestion) participants could choose to submit to only 2 out of the four. (This wouldn't be a rule, naturally. If they wanted to play in all of them, fine).

But for those who could use the extra time to get their piece performance ready and try getting a decent recording, this might be helpful. They wouldn't feel pressured because they know they can skip a recital if they want or need to.

And maybe, with this extra time, some might be willing to take on a more difficult piece. Something they would like to do but never have because of the time restraints.

Just a thought...a way of getting to a manageable number, with benefits inherent for all.

Kathleen

Here's my thought,

Are we here to learn and improve ourself? what about negative comment like:

Wonderful but you will need to improve the rhythm or the left hand is too loud...

I don't mind if someone tell me what I need to improve. But I'm not good enough to comment on piano technic.

Serge

In my opinion, we should all remain as a single group regardless of the number of entries or the category of entries. Most of us will listen to all entries anyway, so why separate them into groups.

Another issue to think about is the self-imposed pressure to comment on performances by those who are otherwise our favorite posters, and the relief of not having this pressure for those who enter the recital yet are infrequent posters.

I think a sincere, blanket “congratulations to all” with extra comments to those pieces that move me is the way I’ll go.

So, if you don't read a comment from me on your performance, you can assume that I think it stinks. If I don't read a comment from you about my performance, I'll assume you think it's great and that you just don't have the time to tell me so. :p

I can't believe that I just wrote that last paragraph.

C'mon, Hunk, ask simpler questions with "yes" or "No" answers rather than these brain twisters. :rolleyes:

I'm just gonna do what everyone else does...whatever that is.

Seriously, I'm delighted to have my Zoom so that I can participate in my first recital.

Interesting dilemma - I think everyone should have there work commented in detail on at least one occasion - but, like Monica, I'm guilty of commenting on the first 20 or so and then losing the time/motivation, though I do of course appreciate and listen to every entry.

Maybe we need 4 or 5 of our more experienced campaigners to comment/critique individually on say a group of 6-8 submissions in detail, so everyone is covered at least once - I think if people then really want to comment on your submission individually, they will do so anyway - just a thought.

Stephenc, you may be onto something.

Lets just say for example that this online recital gets VERY popular (say over 50 participants).

I think it would be safe to say that everyones piece will be heard by everyone, but not nessessarily replied to..(realistically).

Personally, I DO like getting feedback from others as it seems to be my reward for all of the hard work and practise and others have pointed out that EVERYONE should be acknowledged to some degree.

Taking Stephenc's idea of possibly assigning a group to reply on the first 10 submissions, then another group to repond to the next 10....(or 15,20 whatever) may be a viable option.

On the positive side, it would allow for much more in-depth replies (as opposed to a "nice job") and everyone will be receiving thoughtful feedback as well.

This way, it may be a win/win situation by getting more thoughtful replies as well as no one getting left out as well.

This can also avoid potential hurt feelings by less frequent posters whom others may not be as familiar with as well as avoiding everyone commenting on say classical and new-age pieces but shying away from some other styles.

This is only a suggestion (from Stephenc), but I think it may be a very realistic and good one should we need it in the future.

Can someone maybe elaborate more on this or other ideas?.