Reviewing up & coming bands is tough. Using the same scale as commercial music throws up all sorts of issues - do you use a similar quality metric, or a separate one for unsigned acts? Could we really give a band a low mark out of ten, despite all their hard work and constant rehearsals?
We've decided to side step this issue by changing the way we review unsigned and up & coming acts. Instead of an arbitrary mark out of ten, we'll award a different score in each of 5 areas. Instead of a numerical score, it's a gesture based system.
The lowest score is 'needs work', which will indicate an area which is considerably lacking. We'll use this one only in cases where there's an obvious deficiency.
Middle of the road is 'not bad', which is yer bog standard not-bad-but-not-great level of merit.
Next is 'good', indicating a stronger area of performance. Something to be proud of!
The highest rating, 'Awesome', which we'll use to describe something that's stellar in greatness. We won't be handing out these too liberally!
The 5 areas we'll be marking in are Potential - based on how likely we think commercial success could be, Originality - as a guideline to how unique or interesting the band are, Production - as a metric of the gloss and veneer put on the sound of the finished track, Performance - indicative the expertise in the act itself, and finally an Overall score. Check out today's review of The Bluescreen of Death (or any future up&coming review) for an idea of how this works.
What next?More site-related? ?