Reviews discussion

Tony R wrote: Tell me more Epignosis.

I somehow don't think that's necessary.  Suffice it to say a legitimate conversation never made it out of the gate because the initial impetus for that discussion was something people were tired of talking about.

Dean wrote: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=58043

Ah that one. Legendary thread!

Context is everything...

But he was asking in general, and I am still scratching my head about this.  Our definition of "unsigned" and "signed" are not what the music industry says those terms mean, so it's confusing from the beginning.

Now being rejected by genre teams is one thing, and I think Pat kindly and rightfully put folks (me included) in their place when it came to the one specific case.

But we're talking about general rules here.  A band has to charge money for their album to be added?  So this website makes capitalism a requirement for addition?

Epignosis wrote: But he was asking in general, and I am still scratching my head about this.  Our definition of "unsigned" and "signed" are not what the music industry says those terms mean, so it's confusing from the beginning. Now being rejected by genre teams is one thing, and I think Pat kindly and rightfully put folks (me included) in their place when it came to the one specific case. But we're talking about general rules here.  A band has to charge money for their album to be added?  So this website makes capitalism a requirement for addition?

I need a red pen to scribble across this!


Read Dean's post above, please.

^ That's the conclusion, not the discussion.

My position in terms of revised guidelines would be something like this:

1. An artist needs to have issued at least one full length album to be considered for inclusion in the progarchives database.

2. A minimum of one full album must be (or have been) commercially available either as a regular LP/CD or as a digital album available through one of the major digital resellers (emusic, cdbaby, itunes).

3. In special cases an artist may be added that doesn't fulfill these criterias. This merits that all team members of a genre team votes for inclusion and will be subject to approval by the admin team.

4. To be considered as a special case the material presented needs to be of a standard high enough to be regarded as material that easily could have been picked up by a record label.

-----

And for those that thinks this is a pretty lightweight definition that will open the doors of hell or similar:

I've come across numerous artists signed to labels in the past as well as the present that have full label releases out that sounds like it was made by drunken monkeys on 50 year old equipment.

I've come across artists releasing their material for free with a technical quality better than many (if not most) acts represented at this site, and a compositional quality equally good. In one particular case even an artist that does not want to be signed or accept money for his work, instead steadily issuing new material for free for those who want it.

There's also places like www.jamendo.com, where the music is free for the individual listener but needs to be paid for any commercial use whatsoever - and similar sites using creative commons licenses. As more and more artists loose faith in old-fashioned music releases we'll see many more such sites in the coming years; where the artist push their material for use in TV-series, movies, computer games and similar and hope to get their income from such channels - regarding a regular music release physically or digitally as a general loss.

Good point, Olav - especially number 3 and 4 

We actually have a candiate for that for the psych/space department (you probably remember?)
But - you are voting for more work for the admins

Anyhow - we have to check/decide this with ease and thought to avoid something like a new wildfire ...





Edited by Rivertree - August 16 2009 at 09:09

TheProgtologist wrote: Ricochet wrote: Sean Trane wrote: I agree with jJdy     drwlf wrote: http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=230806 I give 5 stars as he says So, how much did you pay? and this kind or reviewing is sickening and ruins the credibility of the site.... Dear Lord. He even mentions what albums he wants Phideaux to send him next.   That review needs deleted!   Blatant ratings manipulation,and something needs to be done about it.

Once again ... I second that

A shameless kiss assing posting - not a review at all. Probably meant sarcastically - nevermind -  tells nothing about the music ... needless ...

Dean wrote: Windhawk wrote: Well, it would be perfect to leave this to the teams alone - but for some reason I don't think the teams will be given that goodwill of trust at this stage. I don't believe that is fair Olav - teams are autonomous and self-governing except when evaluating controversial bands, for which we have rules. Any doubts within a team can be passed on to the Admin team for adjudication - we trust the teams implicitly and to my knowledge have never acted otherwise.

Fair or not - if a more lenint system should be in place, I assume that the admins would want to have some control over it to see what would happen once it was instigated prior to giving the teams full freedom on it - hence the "at this stage" conclusion.

^ That's my feelings on the subject too Jim - #3 should be sparing and at the discretion of the whole team (and unanimously - like any controversial addition).