personally, i feel like there's usually a "core" that needs to be articulated for me to be happy with the product. that may sound like utter crap to others - like y'all said before, it's highly personal.

oh man, i hope there's no production quality standard. my mixes are whaaaack

Nope. Go and listen some of 2012 stuff. There is lot stuff that sounds like it's done in one hour jam. Lot's of lofi stuff and distortion. My first track will be from another planet with zero distortion and actual melody

The rules do not state that a track has to be well produced - just that it has to be "complete".

"Complete" is a very subjective term. However I would probably suggest that it should be treated as you not having anything more you think should be added to/changed about the piece of music.

I know it's a subjective term but I'm saying it should be discussed because it's probably a term they should remove from their "requirements" or description because A) People will ignore it - like me B) Some less certain musicians will be intimidated by it or C) It will have an unexpected influence on the _style_ of the music.

I think it's a matter that should be discussed because it's an interesting challenge in any artist's career (Rhetorically speaking, what is a complete song to you?) but I don't think it should be included in the requirements for the reasons I list above.  I'm not suggesting I'm confused by it.  I'm suggesting it poses those other issues.

For some, this will give them a huge library of ideas for inspiration later, like an illustrator's sketchbook. For people such as myself, this is a seriously needed kick in the pants to set aside perfectionism and actually finish something. Oh, and let's not forget fun.

One mans complete track may be another mans rough palette.

For instance there are famous "tracks" one of which is over 4 minutes long and its complete silence.

Seems like a strange "rule" to me is all i am saying, better off spending your time worrying about other stuff like copyright.

Mark