NEWS PAGE. [To see older news updates, consult the archived version.] 07.05.2001. Finally added a Message Board. We'll see how it works out. 19.02.2001. Some good news for the offended, disgruntled, and deported fans today. Three related things are currently bothering my mind. The first one is that I'm not too satisfied with the "general evaluation" thingie that I have put up on most of my pages. Much as I tried avoiding inobjective assessment, it's still hard to do so. I have found that I've actually been messing up the criteria: "listenability" sometimes stands for "lack of dissonance" and sometimes stands for "accessibility", which are different things, "resonance" sometimes stands for "tear-jerking music" and sometimes stands for "ass-kicking", and the "adequacy" and "listenability" criteria often get doubled through each other. So, while I don't want to eliminate that feature at all, I wouldn't want to deify it either or rely too much upon it. The second thing is that if I'm going to gradually build up my MP3 pages to the state of "regular" ones, this will result in a mess of one-star and two-star rated artists which is simply boring. Finally, the third and most important thing is that there's a tremendous disparity between general ratings and band ratings on the site. As I calculated, about 45% (almost an entire half) of the records reviewed on the site - not including the MP3 titles - fall within the 11-10 mark on the general rating scale. Normally, that's the average of a three-star band; we could thus be expected to have about 35-40 three-star rated bands on the site (out of 85). And yet - there are only 22. Similar, though not as crucial, disparities happen within the 4-star, 2-star and 1-star bands (the number of the latter ones, in particular, should be reduced to make way for MP3 artists...). RESUME: The site will soon be gradually undergoing The Great Rating Shift. I have traced myself a list of bands to be upgraded and will soon get busy on it. At least three or four bands will get upgraded to four stars, at least 15-18 bands will get upgraded to three, and at least 5-7 bands will get upgraded to two. Some of the record ratings will be affected by it, of course (the highest ratings in an obligatory manner, the lower ones - in a facultative manner). Be on the lookout for changing ratings. I dedicate this action to all the deserving composers and performers out there. Cheers!15.02.2001. I have adopted a new policy towards MP3 reviews. After serious consideration, it becomes obvious that the two distinct criteria (i.e. "audio CD format/MP3 format", on one side, and "great music/tolerable music", on the other) don't exactly match each other in my case. I mean, things like having a clearly 2-star deserving band like Electric Light Orchestra - and yes, they deserve at least two stars, if not more - in MP3 format and, say, Ringo Starr in audio CD format is only due to the fact that I've been able to buy all Ringo CDs for cheap and haven't been able to do the same with ELO. Nothing more. Therefore, everything will function as follows. The MP3 section will stay, as long as I haven't yet completed the review section for artist so-and-so (and given that I'm following chronological order, each page takes a really really long time to bring to conclusion). As soon as a particular MP3 page is completed, though, it will be given the usual status - that is, the reviews will be "polished", the band/artist given a general rating, the tracks will be added to the track index, album covers will appear, etc. etc. In the long run, this means I'll probably have to add a general rating of "zero" for bands like Kansas and Kiss, but wouldn't that be fun? PS. This decision also has to do with the fact that I've accumulated an overwhelming number of MP3's - about a thousand albums in that category waiting to be reviewed. I will therefore be spending far more time working on that section than on the regular audio section from now on.07.02.2001. I have come up with a new plan of file structure, in order to reduce the horrendous lengths. The main idea is to separate reader comments from the main review bodies into a separate file, binding both together with a reasonable system of crosslinks. In this way, I won't have to endlessly upload the same reviews onto the server, but will have the freedom to mess around with separate - and far smaller - reader comments' sections. So far, I have processed one page - the Genesis page it is - and I'm more or less pleased with the results, but I still wish to hear people's opinions on whether they like it or not oand I'm open to suggestions. One major defect here is that it can be hard to switch between comments and reviews all the time; besides, certain people would probably like to have reviews and comments side by side. But in this case the best solution could be to open the comments page in a parallel browser. Also, if the comments page becomes too huge itself, it's FAR easier for me to break a reader comments page in two than a normal review page in two (as I have done previously), because I won't have to rearrange the links in a million other places. Example: if I cut the genesis.htm page into genesis.htm and genesis1.htm, I'll have to go through the ratings page, the indexes, the track listings, the chronology pages, etc., and change the genesis.htm link to genesis1.htm link, and that's tedious. And then the page grows even larger and what? (Just look at my Stones page, it'll soon grow to a 1MB size!). So I'm all for the approach to separate reviews and comments. Any ideas?20.01.2001. Finally started work on the long-coveted 'best-of' list. It will take some time, though, but if you wanna see the work in progress, click here. The biggest differences from the usual lists are these: a) I'm trying to make this list more 'comprehensive' rather than just based on my subjective tastes, something that a 'rock novice' could really use to try and expand the picture - so I might even include certain albums I don't really like; b) I'm currently limiting myself to the Sixties and Seventies, for understandable reasons; c) I'm not limiting myself to any special number (100, 50, 200, etc.). Numbers suck, don't they? We'll just see what it all boils down to. I swear NOT to include every second album reviewed on the site, so don't fear. 18.01.2001. Big changes today: I have redone the entire index page AGAIN, because of two reasons. 1) I have grown dissatisfied with my former classification of the artists. The new classification is more detailed, and although no classification of rock artists will ever be perfect, I believe it's somewhat more adequate than whatever preceded it anyway (no more putting the Monkees, the Velvet Underground and Jefferson Airplane in the same bag, at least). 2) I have 'integrated' the regular pages, the Odds & Sods artists and the MP3 artists when making the classification; the pages themselves stay the same as before, but I don't group the 'odds & sods' and 'mp3' artists together any more, simply because it hardly makes any sense. As of now, TWO index pages are active - a short one and a long one. The short one ('index.htm') is the site's main starting page; the long one ('index2.htm'), containing detailed listings of all the albums reviewed, is being retained for, ahem, aesthetic reasons. (You may not believe it, but some people actually dug the colours on there!). Actually, this might be the first step on the way to a full 'integration' of the regular and the MP3 sections. This will, however, not happen exactly in the nearest future.01.01.2001. A New Year, a New Star... Honestly now, this was probably one of the most event-filled and complex years of my entire life. No wonder it had three zeros in it... Organizing conferences, writing articles, defending PhDs, going away on serious business trips, earning as much money as possible (which isn't that much, of course, but still...), and on top of that - the usual routine. Work, family-tending, and THIS. THIS wasn't too bad, was it? I did manage to transgress the 1000 album mark, after all. On a purely quantitative scale, this site will never really be threatening Wilson & Alroy, Prindle, or Music Junkies Anonymous, but given the fact that - unlike all of these sites - there's only one madman taking care of it, I dare say it ain't that mean a feat either. Perhaps the most revolutionary move of the year has been in establishing the MP3 reviews page. This means that I am now not necessarily limited to the work of those artists a) whom I like or love and b) whose output I can't afford or find on audio CD. Possibilities are unlimited! More or less. Now I don't exactly have any new specific ideas for the year of 2001 - the only thing I can say is that the site will definitely go on through the year unless there's an emergency. Currently I have about 150 audio CDs and more than 800 albums in MP3 format that are waiting to be reviewed, and in the process, many wishes of those who'd like to see their favourite artist reviewed on the site will be granted. Though I'm not telling any names right now - make your own bets. And a Happy New Year to all of you!
Return To The Index Page! Now! |