Hello all,

I didn't mean by my post from way back I didn't think there was no value in paid critiques. I think there are. Even John Grisham and Steve King had editors.

I had some songs critiqued a few years ago and two different people liked the same song best of what they heard. I was a big believer that a different song was the most commercial thing I ever wrote. It bothered me they liked the one I didn't like as much.

This brings me to a joke Barbara Cloyd told at one of her get-togethers. It was a "how many [insert group] does it take to change a lightbulb?" She got to "how many [songwriters] does it take to change a lightbulb?" The answer was "none...it doesn't need to be changed." That's how a lot of us feel when we do get critiqued, paid or not. My nature is such that I would want to argue with Craig Wiseman or Tim McGraw if they said they'd publish/record a song if I'd only change one little thing. I have to fight that feeling and listening to critics helps me with perspective.

Obama and Bush and every other president has advisors and doctors get advice from other docs at times so there is value in critiques. A critique from me is not as valuable as a critique from Marc Barnette. Some are at a level where they might get more out of a critique from me and then later would get more out of a critique from Marc. It's those songwriting plateaus.

Another thing about critiques is this IMO: If we go in and write as good as Susan Boyle sang, we'll blow them out of the water.