Review of proposal: "WorldBand"
Proposal author:
Ronald Shaw
(blog: http://rbshaw5.blogspot.com/
Proposal reviewer: James Vickers (jvick3@unm.edu)
Proposal restatement
The proposal is the
make a social web site for collaboration between bands. For instance, a user could upload a track or
sample from a simple instrument and other users can do the same (but likely for
other instruments), by which music can be made from distinct pieces written by
different people.
Reviewer reaction
The project is novel
and interesting. I'm usually not big on
social media ideas, but this one strikes me as cool on the surface. I think much more attention needs to be paid
to the music collaboration tool itself.
I think perhaps the proposal writer is withholding details on this
aspect on purpose, which may or may not be wise (we need a taste of it at
least).
Quantitative scores
Format:
Good layout. I
especially like the "Context of work" diagram (section 4b), which
shows basic transactions to take place in the project's ecosystem. The in-depth timeline section is detailed,
but at a cost of added length. It could
possibly be put into some kind of calendar format. I also think the "Work partitioning
table" (section 4c) could probably use a column for the actors involved
(i.e. user and site, advertiser and site, etc.).
Writing: 5
No complaints.
Style is clear and simple to read.
Goals and tasks: 3
The goals of the web site interface are well-defined,
but those of the music collaboration tool it hosts need to be expanded. It's a lot of the novelty of the project, and
we need to know how users from across the world will be able to work with each
other without getting frustrated.
Scope: 5
The project is meant to be a web site for people to
upload, download (for a fee), and collaboratively create new music by combining
tracks or samples. Little ambiguity to
be had.
Plausibility: 4
The product seems plausible overall. One possible difficulty is managing the collaboration
between users on a single music file to try and prevent themselves from
clobbering each other's work.
Novelty: 5
This idea seems so
good that I'm still trying to figure out if it already exists. It's stated that GarageBand (by Apple) does
not have a functionality to collaborate on music online, which I find
surprising (not that I've used GarageBand, I just thought that was part of its
purpose). If such a site/tool doesn't
exist, it seems like it should come into existence.
Stakeholder identification: 4
Stakeholders are listed neatly. I do however think some are missing, related
to the possibility of plagiarized music being sold on the site. In that case, people such as the RIAA
(Recording Industry Artists of America) or government agencies could become
negative stakeholders.
Support and impact:
The project has convincing impact, in that it could be
used to help people from all over the world make music together. It's one of those ideas we only dream of in
the internet age. The more users the
site has, the better it gets; this growth model is a double-edged sword by
which some sites like YouTube become huge and others die in the night without a
sound.
Evidence: 4
Your budget is nice and detailed, but I notice that week
2 is budgeted well above the 75 hours you said you had available for each week. I find that you have done your research on
web design and the related technologies, as well as competitors products and
the features they lack for your product to fill. The "Context of work" (section 4b)
diagram is a nice summary view of the project's scope and function. There is room for improvement in describing
the type of interface envisioned to allow collaborative music writing, the crux
of the proposal.
Challenges and risks: 3
I think there is an important legal and ethical risk
missing from the proposal. The site is
paying people who create parts of music tracks when they are downloaded by
users. What isn't mentioned is the
distinct possibility that some of those samples or tracks are already
plagiarized. In that case, this site
will be paying the wrong people for music that neither the site nor the person
who uploaded it own. I think the other
challenges and risks are addressed rigorously.
No comments:
Post a Comment