Music journalism sites charging non-major labels to review their CDs : C/D?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I guess this has been getting fwded around to lots of folks, so I might as well trump it and make it a thread... ostensibly started by the fellow who wrote the former part of the following. Here is the fwded e-mail in question:

...

Sandi,

I was forwarded your e-mail to our promotion guy Marc. I have to tell you that I've been running a label for 20 years and have never heard of anything as ridiculous as this. You're a music magazine and you "charge" the bands money to review their music in your magazine? Oh, but only nonmajor label bands/musicians! The ones that don't have any money. Nice to know that you support music, which, correct me if I'm wrong, is the purpose of your magazine!?

I notice on your site that the information regarding your pay for review system does not include the part you mentioned in your e-mail to us about charging only non major label releases. As my brother Mark has already told you, we will remove you from our mailing list. I also plan to forward your e-mail stating your particularly slimy policies to ever other independent label, magazine, band etc. warning them to remove you from their mailing lists and boycott your corporate butt licking policy. Your money grubbing policies disgust me and are just another reason why we think multi-national corporations should stay the hell away from music.

Shawn Stern
President, BYO Records

------ Forwarded Message

From: (sandi's e-mail removed)
To: (byo promo e-mail removed)
Subject: cd reviews

Hi,
We received cds for review from your office.

Please be advised, we have a $20 cd-review
policy for all submissions from unsigned and
independent-label bands. If you'd like the cds
reviewed, please send payment to the following
address....

NY Rock
PO Box (number removed)
New York, NY 10028

We also accept payment via PayPal.com. Contact us
for account information.

Thank you,
Sandi
NY Rock

...

The "NY Rock" in question is presumably this website: www.nyrock.com. (This is probably already far more publicity than they deserve in any case, but for the SAKE OF MUSICAL ARGUMENT!)

Now.. on one hand, you can argue that credibility is due on NY Rock's part for at least being honest about their policy, whereas many magazines would sooner smile at you then throw 75% of your mail into a "sell back" duffel bag. (Then again, maybe the brilliance here is charging bands to give them stuff to sell back? heh heh)

And if the magazine/site had a good reputation for well written reviews, and reflected a strong readership as such, then I feel that charging bands to add a GREATER chance of a coherent review of their records would be justified. However the "non-major" distinction smells funny, and a quick perusing of the reviews nothing more useful than blandness that varies between faint praise and press release rough drafts.

So, anyway, what y'all think? Justified means to support oneself in a troubling economy? Multi-national corp cock sucking? Both? Pointless to even talk about?

― donut bitch (donut), Monday, 4 November 2002 03:44 (twenty-two years ago)

Heck, they're more than welcome to throw my CD in the sell back pile for all it really matters, but charging for the privilege? Get fucked. Haven't they heard of selling advertising? I'd expect 10 out of 10, even for $10.

― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Monday, 4 November 2002 03:46 (twenty-two years ago)

quite astonishing.

mind you, it is food for thought: "if you give us 20 bucks, we won't publish this shit review of one of your bands - in fact, we won't review it at all" might make some sense, since it follows the theory that if something's rubbish, why bother writing about it...but that's a whole nother argument innit?

― Charlie (Charlie), Monday, 4 November 2002 03:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Surely they're just taking literally the comment every reviewer must have made at some point: 'you'd have to pay me to listen to this shit'?

― alext (alext), Monday, 4 November 2002 12:55 (twenty-two years ago)

A pay-review scheme I have no problems with - aside from the fact that people wouldn't pay and so it wouldn't work - but limiting it to independent and unsigned bands is pathetic.

Oh, and if reviewing records is so arduous, DONT REVIEW THEM. I get n emails a week from people promoting CDs and I just ignore them or if its the artist write back and say sorry, we don't do reviews.

― Tom (Groke), Monday, 4 November 2002 13:06 (twenty-two years ago)

I was totally outraged upon reading it, until I realised that most music rags strictly follow this policy anyway, except it's called "advertising revenue."

Reaming indies, however, is simply crap. Much better idea is to charge majors £50 a pop for reviews, as they actually can (and would have no philosophical problem with) do this. Use this major label cash to fund the paper upon which decent and deserving bands without Major Label Trust Funds are reviewed.

― kate, Monday, 4 November 2002 13:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Use this major label cash to fund the paper upon which decent and deserving bands without Major Label Trust Funds are reviewed.

This, young Kate, is the principle on which Playlouder.com was founded. Woo-hoo!

― Charlie (Charlie), Tuesday, 5 November 2002 01:15 (twenty-two years ago)

there is something hoax-ish about this, when i check nyrocks.com, byo records had several reviews listed on there.....and one of them was a bad one. don't believe everything you read on the 'net, kids.

― doom-e, Tuesday, 5 November 2002 07:03 (twenty-two years ago)

That don't mean they didn't pay for it, Doom!

― kate, Tuesday, 5 November 2002 10:42 (twenty-two years ago)

Well if you look at the site, it does state that reviews are 20 bucks each.. I would say that they paid for them, and then when one garnered a bad review- got pissed.. anyhow, Ive never even heard of this shite rag, as if there arent enough e-zines out there already...

― insecitfly, Tuesday, 5 November 2002 14:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Let the readership (i.e. circulation = dollars/pounds) decide what they want to see get reviewed. Vote with your feet. You want to read reviews about indie music, you don't want to wade through reviews of major-label crap.. You want to read only about music that you've heard of already, you don't want to be distracted by all that "college music."

What publication caters to both demographics and does it well?

― dave225 (Dave225), Tuesday, 5 November 2002 15:17 (twenty-two years ago)

My band (Darediablo) was reviewed there without a word from them, and that was for an independent release. If it's a policy of theirs, I haven't heard it from any NYC bands, and I certainly haven't seen it in action. Even though it's a stated policy of theirs ("Note, we have top-notch writers and like to pay them for their work"), it's inconsistently enforced. And their writers are hardly all top-notch.

― billydiablo (billydiablo), Tuesday, 5 November 2002 15:39 (twenty-two years ago)

I guess the real question here is: If you pay more, will it ensure you get a more favorable review or more page space?

― Lord Custos Omega (Lord Custos Omega), Tuesday, 5 November 2002 16:17 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.