RBN: Just Indie Bands?

[Kariodude]

I don't really understand people's logic when they say this. The main thing I keep coming back to is that major labels might hire a group of people just to make charts for their bands song constantly and pump out as much DLC as possible. Local independent bands are going to have to figure out how to do everything themselves even more than they do being an unsigned band in the first place. Think about this scenario:

Warner Music Group hears about the RBN. They decide they like money and could just hire a group of 10-20 people to chart their songs. They could then release singles the same day they are released for radio, release albums the same day they hit store shelves, and release classic songs in the midst of the new for even more cash. This group would ONLY be making charts for songs round the clock 5 days a week. A record label would be stupid to not cash in on something so simple.

See, from my point of view, it's actually going to be a lot easier for bigger bands and labels to get in on this than unsigned indie bands. A lot of indie bands don't even have the proper recording equipment to record seperate tracks successfully for them to be used in Rock Band.

Am I just completely delusional? I feel like I'm the only one seeing things this way

[Zidane]

The idea is that Indie bands will finally get a wider recognition. Major labels are still not sure how this will work and won't be as easy to take a risk on it as maybe an indie band could.

[stelite]

Well in my opinion who overlook a lot of things....first of all these 10people working round the clock will also charge round the clock.
Second of all, now the label doesn't have to pay only the band but also to HMX (instead of harmonix paying them to buy the rights).These big bands and labels already have the opportunity to be in rockband and this will not make any big difference to them...even worse, now they will be in the shadow of thousands of other little bands. So basically imho being in RBN will be less interesting of deal for big labels as it used to be.
On the other hand take an indie band, they will do all of this themselves(no fees), they will be highly motivated since they don't need a label to touch a huge a mount of people anymore.
I mean if i had a band i would publish every single title on RBN, whereas U2 will just continue selling CDS...
Keep in mind that HMX is no longer saying "hey U2! we are willing to pay you the big bucks to have you in our game (cd or dlc)"....
Nope this is over...now they are saying: "Hey U2 if you want to be in rockband just upload your tracks, if people buy, we pay you."

[afterstasis]

Well in my opinion who overlook a lot of things....first of all these 10people working round the clock will also charge round the clock.
Second of all, now the label doesn't have to pay only the band but also to HMX (instead of harmonix paying them to buy the rights).These big bands and labels already have the opportunity to be in rockband and this will not make any big difference to them...even worse, now they will be in the shadow of thousands of other little bands. So basically imho being in RBN will be less interesting of deal for big labels as it used to be.
On the other hand take an indie band, they will do all of this themselves(no fees), they will be highly motivated since they don't need a label to touch a huge a mount of people anymore.
I mean if i had a band i would publish every single title on RBN, whereas U2 will just continue selling CDS...
Keep in mind that HMX is no longer saying "hey U2! we are willing to pay you the big bucks to have you in our game (cd or dlc)"....
Nope this is over...now they are saying: "Hey U2 if you want to be in rockband just upload your tracks, if people buy, we pay you."

incorrect... regular DLC will still be provided, and i seriously doubt the terms and contracts will be any different for bands who take that route.

RBN is simply another option...

[stelite]

So in RBN we will have indie bands the most cos big labels will still go for regular DLC deals...i can't see where i am incorrect....?

[afterstasis]

So in RBN we will have indie bands the most cos big labels will still go for regular DLC deals...i can't see where i am incorrect....?

you stated that bands like U2 would no longer be offered the regular route for DLC, and that's not true... that option is still there, along with the new RBN method.

i VERY seriously doubt HMX is going to stop pursuing any major bands because of the RBN...
if anything, they may be able to focus on bands they consider more vital for regular DLC, knowing that RBN is raking in more indie bands with less effort on their part.

we will have to wait and see how the major labels and bands take to the RBN... i personally suspect it will be a much bigger hit amongst smaller labels and bands, but for all we know this could be something the big labels/bands see a lot of merit (AKA: $$$) in.

[disco_stu]

I'm thinking really obscure bands will be heard about first on RBN, using the gaming community as a platform. Record labels will monitor the sales and snap up the popular acts.

Nothing innately new about that, but everyone wins. Labels, bands and we get DLC.

Mainstream acts will be just as hard to get and we'll still be getting them via regular DLC, unless authors want to stick a few EP's etc on there to see.

Supergroups and huge bands of the last 60 years will be just as impossible. So don't go thinking this is Zep time.

[princeofcups]

incorrect... regular DLC will still be provided, and i seriously doubt the terms and contracts will be any different for bands who take that route.

RBN is simply another option...

Your songs have to undergo peer review. Songs will come out in dribs and drabs. Does any megacorp want to do that? Besides, as much as we think that the world revolves around RB, to the corps this is just one small outlet, and I don't see it getting that much attention. Not to mention that they are possibly missing out on the PS3/Wii market.

[Avatar_Ko]

I don't really understand people's logic when they say this. The main thing I keep coming back to is that major labels might hire a group of people just to make charts for their bands song constantly and pump out as much DLC as possible. Local independent bands are going to have to figure out how to do everything themselves even more than they do being an unsigned band in the first place. Think about this scenario:

Warner Music Group hears about the RBN. They decide they like money and could just hire a group of 10-20 people to chart their songs. They could then release singles the same day they are released for radio, release albums the same day they hit store shelves, and release classic songs in the midst of the new for even more cash. This group would ONLY be making charts for songs round the clock 5 days a week. A record label would be stupid to not cash in on something so simple.

See, from my point of view, it's actually going to be a lot easier for bigger bands and labels to get in on this than unsigned indie bands. A lot of indie bands don't even have the proper recording equipment to record seperate tracks successfully for them to be used in Rock Band.

Am I just completely delusional? I feel like I'm the only one seeing things this way

Of course you're right, but how else could it work? I think there's just a lot of people who are excited that (insert band that nobody knows here) can finally be in Rock Band.

[afterstasis]

Your songs have to undergo peer review. Songs will come out in dribs and drabs. Does any megacorp want to do that? Besides, as much as we think that the world revolves around RB, to the corps this is just one small outlet, and I don't see it getting that much attention.

that's very possible, but i remember similar things being said about major artists never receiving much attention via DLC (basically saying that big artists will want to stick to on-disc songs for these games)...

since then we've had huge packs/albums from bands like iron maiden, no doubt, the who, foo fighters, nirvana, and rush.
we've also had songs that quite possibly trump the biggest songs on-disc, such as "don't stop believing", "all the small things", "wonderwall", "dr feelgood", and "jeremy".

i'd honestly be surprised if it becomes a total success with the major labels, but i would be even more surprised if they didn't at least give it a shot...
if anything, i imagine they'll try it out first with their lesser known artists and lesser known songs from bigger artists...
i also agree with other posters that it could very well become a pretty successful advertising tool (RBN versions of new releases, including codes with CD's to download a few songs from the RBN version of the album, etc.)

[Lawdog1521]

The only bands I can see the major labels using this for are bands your probably not going to be excited about. (Whatever the tweener band of the moment is.) Bands Harmonix wouldn't pursue but labels still want to promote. (I.E. the entire Naked Brothers catalog)

[Avatar_Ko]

Your songs have to undergo peer review. Songs will come out in dribs and drabs. Does any megacorp want to do that? Besides, as much as we think that the world revolves around RB, to the corps this is just one small outlet, and I don't see it getting that much attention. Not to mention that they are possibly missing out on the PS3/Wii market.

Um, that's better than the way it happens now. The labels give HMX some songs (but only so many because HMX can only do so much) and they wait for months for Harmonix to get them done and in the store. The RBN makes it easier by moving stuff in-house and giving the labels more control.

[disco_stu]

Jonas Brothers...

..oh no..

...what have we done??

[afterstasis]

The only bands I can see the major labels using this for are bands your probably not going to be excited about. (Whatever the tweener band of the moment is.) Bands Harmonix wouldn't pursue but labels still want to promote. (I.E. the entire Naked Brothers catalog)

while it could very well include tween-pop bands it will also open the doors for bands like the black keys, sebadoh, bad brains, the rentals, wilco, the magnetic fields, echo & the bunnymen, mojave 3, and spacehog (all bands under the warner bros imprint who may not cause a lot of commotion via the regular DLC, but would still make quite a few sales from less casual music fans).

[woodwindpizza]

RBN is just way for more bands to give us songs faster and have a much better chance of being in the game through DLC. Am I correct?

[Mr. Tate]

There's no way a medium-to-major act will accept that they can't advertise or push their songs because a group of players still need to approve them. If RBN will be about peer reviews for content, and not simply for technical accuracy, I think we will mostly see minor bands.

[Avatar_Ko]

There's no way a medium-to-major act will accept that they can't advertise or push their songs because a group of players still need to approve them. If RBN will be about peer reviews for content, and not simply for technical accuracy, I think we will mostly see minor bands.

Um, it's not. Harmonix only reviews them for quality of charting, content and licensing. Then they go on the 360. After a month, they'll spread out and there's no way that medium-to-major acts will have any trouble spreading out.

[kingtonyx]

Obviously the labels would learn how long the approval process takes and submit the tracks accordingly... or perhaps certain tracks will get more immediate attention from the reviewers in order to hit a certain date.

[Coach Z]

Indie bands are going for exposure, not cash - they'll flood RBN with 50 cent songs for the win.

[Mr. Tate]

Um, it's not. Harmonix only reviews them for quality of charting, content and licensing.

No they don't. The *community* will review the songs, not Harmonix. I may agree that medium-to-big acts would get through community review, bu still someone must tell the label, and the label must tell the artists, that they have no power over whether they are published or not, it's up to the people. Not buying them, but approving them for distribution.

[Mr. Tate]

Um, that's better than the way it happens now. The labels give HMX some songs (but only so many because HMX can only do so much) and they wait for months for Harmonix to get them done and in the store. The RBN makes it easier by moving stuff in-house and giving the labels more control.

Yes, but no. This is the very objection I made yesterday. The fact that you have to go through the process of creating the charts, with all the money and time involved, without knowing that your song will be published is a potential turnoff. You can't even promote your song or announce that it's been developed for the game, because you can't be sure that it will make it. Once the approval process is explained we'll know more but as of now labels are on the same field of single users who composed an acoustic guitar ballad, but they have very different needs and targets...

[Magik_Tek]

Indie bands are going for exposure, not cash - they'll flood RBN with 50 cent songs for the win.

That's pretty much how I see it as well.

Major labels are going to use a wait and see approach before they ever consider putting resources into RBN. Traditional licensing will still be the preferred way major labels conduct their business because those licensing deals are lucrative and the payout per download is greater than RBN.

The way I see things working out in the future regarding DLC as whole is:

- Indie/smaller bands will use RBN as a avenue to get their band known. For them RBN is going to help them build a fanbase who will than in turn go to concerts, buy CDS and ultimately help them get signed to a major label. Of course they earn a some money but the promotion they get through RBN is what is most important

- The big bands like Metallica, Muse, Iron Maidens etc will continue with the traditional licensing as I said before, its more lucrative in the long run

- RBN is going to have A LOT of new singles from all bands. We saw the positive effects when Motley Crue released Saints of Los Angeles and I bet we will see it again with more bands in the future.

[quinaking]

Harmonix is doing it, that makes it a good idea.

[cherokeesam]

Yes, but no. This is the very objection I made yesterday. The fact that you have to go through the process of creating the charts, with all the money and time involved, without knowing that your song will be published is a potential turnoff. You can't even promote your song or announce that it's been developed for the game, because you can't be sure that it will make it. Once the approval process is explained we'll know more but as of now labels are on the same field of single users who composed an acoustic guitar ballad, but they have very different needs and targets...

To be honest, I don't see the problem of songs being rejected coming up much at all. Yes, all songs will have to undergo peer review, and HMX will review them also, but other than encountering completely objectionable content, songs longer than 10 minutes, songs that have been *grossly* mischarted, or other format errors, I don't see HMX turning down a song for any other reason.

I'm sure there'll be plenty of peer "reviews" that will run along the lines of "ZOMG! This band is teh suxxors....don't put them in RBN" and "LOLWTF guitar chart?!? not enuf triple chords, wheres my hopo dammit etc etc", but those will NOT constitute legitimate reasons to reject a song.

[Mr. Tate]

To be honest, I don't see the problem of songs being rejected coming up much at all. Yes, all songs will have to undergo peer review, and HMX will review them also, but other than encountering completely objectionable content, songs longer than 10 minutes, songs that have been *grossly* mischarted, or other format errors, I don't see HMX turning down a song for any other reason.

It's not Harmonix, it's the peer reviews. Obviously I don't object to any review made by the actual distribution system owner.



I'm sure there'll be plenty of peer "reviews" that will run along the lines of "ZOMG! This band is teh suxxors....don't put them in RBN" and "LOLWTF guitar chart?!? not enuf triple chords, wheres my hopo dammit etc etc", but those will NOT constitute legitimate reasons to reject a song.

I can understand that, and even more so I think that the peer review system will just be a deterrent for medium-to-big acts. Obviously I say this knowing that a lot has still to be said about this system and that I may be wrong, but if it really is about peers revewing, I really don't see the good in it when it comes to approving the song (rating, commenting, tiering? Excellent. Approving? Not so much).

And the reason is simple, and it goes both ways: is the review system, as I fear, going to exclude songs not really to the liking of the community (obscure genres, very easy songs, etc.), be it for insufficient reviewers testing the songs or approving them? Then the labels and the artists have one huge reason not to invest time and money: complete uncertainty in the face of investments made. Is the review system, as you suggest, going to just be a technical check and all songs will just be approved, excluding of course those lacking legal rights to the song by the submitter, obscene lyrics and technical faults? Then it's just going to be something that will prevent artists and bands from knowing for sure that they will be published, without really giving any advantage to the community by filtering not-so-good songs.

Either way, this is an interesting system for really small acts and music loving individuals. They will put time, money and passion into trying to have one song published. They won't care if a "jury of their peers" will have to approve or not. Heck, they may even be happy that some songs won't pass, because if theirs does, then they're better than the others. But they don't make a business out of it, so they don't need to advertise, to plan and to keep a different appearance. This is going to be awesome, nothing less, from a player's point of view, and even more from a reviewer's. Artists side? Mmm, as things stand not so much, at least not for those we would really like to see.

This isn't, in my humble opinion, the flood gates opening that we speculated about months ago when a few of us, me included, suggested a developers kit. It's going to be huge, but it could be bigger, I hope Harmonix will reconsider about this specific facet of the project. Really, just imagine someone going up to, say, Queensryche or Fates Warning management and tell them "Let's pay for the charts, let's even re-record a few singles, let's put them up in a system along side really small acts. Of course, players will still decide if we're gonna be distributed...". It won't fly with medium-to-big acts, in my opinion, IF, I repeat IF, the peers review system will be as I fear. If it's just going to be technical reviewing, well, it's a horse of another color.

[Schultzy]

Wow. To the OP; I NEVER looked at it like that before. Very interesting...

[Knucklesdude]

Medium-to-big acts will more likely contract with a company like Rhythm Authors. There is a very common promise I can guarantee the authors will be making - it's that the music will make it through peer review. And Rhythm Authors does promise that.

And people disapproving of music because of some immature bias will likely be ignored. If it truly becomes a problem, I'm sure Harmonix will develop a deterrent or filter for it.

[Kasil]

I'm thinking that you won't be able to put up the usual $2 a song price point using RBN, so the major labels would potentially be losing money, not to mention HMX wouldn't need to pay licensing fees to them, and thus they don't gain as much money as they could. Better to be asked by HMX than do it yourself and make less for the companies.

[harveyglobetrot]

I'm thinking that you won't be able to put up the usual $2 a song price point using RBN, so the major labels would potentially be losing money, not to mention HMX wouldn't need to pay licensing fees to them, and thus they don't gain as much money as they could. Better to be asked by HMX than do it yourself and make less for the companies.

The uploader to RBN can choose the price for his/her/their song, ranging between $1 and $3.

I see RBN as a democratising agent. Sure, the biggest major can use it just as easily as the smallest indie label or garage band, but it is going to have far more benefit to the smaller players than the bigger. It isn't only for indie bands, but, at least initially, it will be indie bands who benefit the most and who will use it the most.

[Kasil]

The uploader to RBN can choose the price for his/her/their song, ranging between $1 and $3.

I see RBN as a democratising agent. Sure, the biggest major can use it just as easily as the smallest indie label or garage band, but it is going to have far more benefit to the smaller players than the bigger. It isn't only for indie bands, but, at least initially, it will be indie bands who benefit the most and who will use it the most.

I didn't realize they had announced a price point, but still, the labels will make more money with licensing fees followed by profit from the songs rather than just from the songs.

[Die-Guitar-Hero]

I really just hope the music industry cares about this as much as we do. I think the only real speed bump is rock band's considered significance. Rock Band Network turns that table completely. Harmonix was tasked with choosing artists based on their relative significance/profitability and now it's up to the artists to make that call.

[Magik_Tek]

And the reason is simple, and it goes both ways: is the review system, as I fear, going to exclude songs not really to the liking of the community (obscure genres, very easy songs, etc.), be it for insufficient reviewers testing the songs or approving them? Then the labels and the artists have one huge reason not to invest time and money: complete uncertainty in the face of investments made. Is the review system, as you suggest, going to just be a technical check and all songs will just be approved, excluding of course those lacking legal rights to the song by the submitter, obscene lyrics and technical faults? Then it's just going to be something that will prevent artists and bands from knowing for sure that they will be published, without really giving any advantage to the community by filtering not-so-good songs.



RBN is not some sort of popularity contest where songs are judged on the reviewers personal liking. I don't know where you are getting this.

The peer review system is similar to a QA process where certain requirements must be met before it goes to final approval. ie Checking for broken notes, sound problems, spelling mistakes etc.

[cherokeesam]

RBN is not some sort of popularity contest where songs are judged on the reviewers personal liking. I don't know where you are getting this.

The peer review system is similar to a QA process where certain requirements must be met before it goes to final approval. ie Checking for broken notes, sound problems, spelling mistakes etc.

^This.

Nowhere in the press releases/FAQs so far does it indicate that bands who submit material (whether they're unknown or bona fide Gods of Rock) will be at the mercy of some 13-year old geek who doesn't like the way they sound.

[cherokeesam]

I didn't realize they had announced a price point, but still, the labels will make more money with licensing fees followed by profit from the songs rather than just from the songs.

Not necessarily.

Believe it or not, a $3 US price point *will* look very attractive to even the big guns/labels, as opposed to the standard $1.99 they currently earn on RB. A 50% increase in profit margin will make RBN look very sweet, indeed.

And I'd be willing to bet that HMX will *only* let established acts -- not the unknowns -- charge the $3 price point.

[bobushka king]

I don't really understand people's logic when they say this. The main thing I keep coming back to is that major labels might hire a group of people just to make charts for their bands song constantly and pump out as much DLC as possible. Local independent bands are going to have to figure out how to do everything themselves even more than they do being an unsigned band in the first place. Think about this scenario:

Warner Music Group hears about the RBN. They decide they like money and could just hire a group of 10-20 people to chart their songs. They could then release singles the same day they are released for radio, release albums the same day they hit store shelves, and release classic songs in the midst of the new for even more cash. This group would ONLY be making charts for songs round the clock 5 days a week. A record label would be stupid to not cash in on something so simple.

See, from my point of view, it's actually going to be a lot easier for bigger bands and labels to get in on this than unsigned indie bands. A lot of indie bands don't even have the proper recording equipment to record seperate tracks successfully for them to be used in Rock Band.

Am I just completely delusional? I feel like I'm the only one seeing things this way


I agree with you on some of your points, but heres my take on it.

I don't think larger bands/labels will be seen on RBN for at least a few months. I believe they will want to sit back and see how the whole process works and see if the song submitted generate a high download rate (more or less see if any of us buy songs from there). If labels see that us consumers are buying songs they may have an outside company "create" a few songs from a mid to larger band/s to test the waters. If it sells I can foresee labels hiring a small staff (a few people) to make songs to put on RBN.

Here's my reasoning behind this.

-From a monetary standpoint the song owner gets 30% of each download. It's not out of the question that a more well known band could sell 20,000 downloads of a single song. At $2 a download the label/band would generate $12,000... from a single song. If a single employee can produce one song a day (which would cost around $300 or so figuring on $30 an hour plus other expenses) that is a huge profit margin. If a major label really embraces RBN they could be looking at millions in revenue with very little cost.

-With a mid range band, especially one that has been "off the radar" for a while, RBN may be seen as a great way to promote a new album or tour. If a band puts up their new album/hit/some older hits it could generate quite a bit of buzz and increase record and ticket sales.

-There's also the prospect that a label will "test the waters" with a new band they may be looking to sign. If they have staff members creating the songs they could submit a couple songs from a band to see how well it sells.

That is just my humble opinion (and hope) of how RBN is going to work. I know there is going to be a slew or indie/underground bands submitting songs, that is inevitable as this provides them with a great springboard to get their music out. And I also know that we may never see some of the "monster" bands (Led, Pink Floyd, U2, etc.) ever have a song on the RBN, but I'm hoping that some of the larger acts can see the benefits of this program and utilize it.

I also want to thank HMX for thinking up and creating such an amazing concepts. Once again you have not only evolved the rhythm/music video game genre, but complete flipped it on its head.

[Mr. Tate]

RBN is not some sort of popularity contest where songs are judged on the reviewers personal liking. I don't know where you are getting this.

The peer review system is similar to a QA process where certain requirements must be met before it goes to final approval. ie Checking for broken notes, sound problems, spelling mistakes etc.

Can you please point me out to any official document or Harmonix staff statement that says that the review system is only going to be about technical problems and it will be about a QA process? I really didn't find it.

[Mr. Tate]

Not necessarily.

Believe it or not, a $3 US price point *will* look very attractive to even the big guns/labels, as opposed to the standard $1.99 they currently earn on RB. A 50% increase in profit margin will make RBN look very sweet, indeed.

RBN will pay 35% of the price to the authors. I don't know how much is the normal DLC paying right now, but either it's 35% or we can't talk of a 50% increase. In example, if right now Dream Theater take 50% of the DLC price, for a 2 dollars song they take 1 dollar: to take the same amount of money from RBN songs they need to put a price tag of 3 dollars. Then again, I have no idea of how much bands currently take from DLC songs.

[Mr. Tate]

They could then release singles the same day they are released for radio, release albums the same day they hit store shelves

No they can't. They have to go through the approval process. So they have two options: go public with a song/album 1-2 weeks (whatever time it takes to "clear" a song for distribution) before its official release, meaning that people will actually get to listen, copy, passa around, etc. the song/album before its release date; go public with the song/album the day it's released, but then the approval process will take its course, and only after that they can launch the song/album for RBN distribution.

[sa_nick]

What?

Does anyone even want major bands flooding the RBN with sub-standard charts? I'd prefer to just get a nice stream of songs from cool indie bands who put a bunch of effort into making their own stuff for promotion rather than cash.

[defenestrater]

Can you please point me out to any official document or Harmonix staff statement that says that the review system is only going to be about technical problems and it will be about a QA process? I really didn't find it.

The official announcement used the phrase "peer review." Peer review means putting your work under the scrutiny of qualified, impartial experts for appraisal and to make sure that your work meets some kind of standard of quality. Peer review does not mean random dudes on the internet turning stuff down because it doesn't have enough triple power chords. I don't think too many bands are going to get tripped up over the notion of peer review.

[Magik_Tek]

The official announcement used the phrase "peer review." Peer review means putting your work under the scrutiny of qualified, impartial experts for appraisal and to make sure that your work meets some kind of standard of quality. Peer review does not mean random dudes on the internet turning stuff down because it doesn't have enough triple power chords. I don't think too many bands are going to get tripped up over the notion of peer review.

^This

On top of that, what sense does it make for HMX or any company for that matter spend 16 months building RBN just to have one of the more crucial aspects to have such a loop hole if people can turn down songs based on personal bias.

[cherokeesam]

Can you please point me out to any official document or Harmonix staff statement that says that the review system is only going to be about technical problems and it will be about a QA process? I really didn't find it.

From HMXEnosity:


Peer review (similar to the XNA indie games process) will catch licensing issues, authoring issues, and content issues.

Says nothing about "peer review (similar to the XNA indie games process) will catch "OMG I HATE THIS MUSIC IT SUX SO BAAAAAAD" issues.

That's from the FAQ, stickied on the Rock Band forums page. (Apparently a *lot* of people haven't consulted the FAQ yet.)

[Mr. Tate]

The official announcement used the phrase "peer review." Peer review means putting your work under the scrutiny of qualified, impartial experts for appraisal and to make sure that your work meets some kind of standard of quality.

Who says that? Hey, I'm all for this interpretation, it's just that I can't find any information pointing to this. When I asked Sean if a band had any assurance that their work would be approved he said they didn't, which is by the way in contrast with what the only company currently working on RBN is guaranteeing. He said they have no assurance to be approved, he didn't say "Well, it's just going to be a technical thing". Again, if this is a technical reviewing process as you are saying, I'm all for it, not only that, I think it's important to have it. But I would love to know where you actually read that, that's all.

[Mr. Tate]

From HMXEnosity:



Says nothing about "peer review (similar to the XNA indie games process) will catch "OMG I HATE THIS MUSIC IT SUX SO BAAAAAAD" issues.

That's from the FAQ, stickied on the Rock Band forums page. (Apparently a *lot* of people haven't consulted the FAQ yet.)

All right, thanks. I actually read the FAQ, but the FAQ on creators.rockband.com. Thanks, gonna read it right away.

[Mr. Tate]

From HMXEnosity:



Says nothing about "peer review (similar to the XNA indie games process) will catch "OMG I HATE THIS MUSIC IT SUX SO BAAAAAAD" issues.

That's from the FAQ, stickied on the Rock Band forums page. (Apparently a *lot* of people haven't consulted the FAQ yet.)

Well, I'm not really convinced. The phrase you quoted was in response to this: "What if people try to game the system and get illegal stuff up on the service?". And actually, the quote now makes to me the opposite meaning: it IS going to be a content wise review, not only because it actually sasy so in the quote (content review), but because it's supposed to catch content issues.

Also, read here:

"We've done some creative charting before. Piano or Organ solo on Guitar for example. I think it will be encouraged as long as it's tasteful. I have a song coming out for RBN where a bleepy synth is authored to guitar. There's no guitar in the track so it's tasteful."

Tasteful. Again, if it's not tasteful then there's a problem. So, it's also about content.

Obviously right now we don't know much it is actually going to be about content, but it's going to be, it's not just a technical review.

There's also an issue about the review system that's not about content, and it's the number of reviewers. What if some label's song isn't getting reviewed? It's gonna delay the distribution process.

Again, this is all speculation at this point, but given the information we have there's no way anyone can say that the review process is only going to be a technical one, because it's not. How much this is going to put off medium-to-big acts and if we should even care is up for debate and at this stage I don't think we can know.

[KozmicRiff]

while it could very well include tween-pop bands it will also open the doors for bands like the black keys, sebadoh, bad brains, the rentals, wilco, the magnetic fields, echo & the bunnymen, mojave 3, and spacehog (all bands under the warner bros imprint who may not cause a lot of commotion via the regular DLC, but would still make quite a few sales from less casual music fans).

That is where I see the opportunity for bigger bands. Maybe Warrant can only get HMX to license "Cherry Pie" but they feel that they have more songs then one that people would like if they are exposed to them. This is a route the label/band can use to get multiple songs out.

Maybe HMX just thinks that Skid Row's 18 and life is the only song that will really sell, but Skid Row thinks that their Monkey Business album is the album that they want to be remembered for..... Now they can work to get that album on.

This may also be great for some bands that had hits but history seems to have forgotten and they do not really have HMX knocking on their doors..... Like Georgia Satellites, Robert Palmer, Huey Lewis and The News, Golden Earring, Mountain, Super Tramp, Cinderella, ASIA, Steve Winwood, Genesis, White Lion, John Hiatt, Bruce Hornsby and The Range, etc....

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

[defenestrater]

Who says that?

Uh, everyone who knows what peer review is. Peer review is a common practice in professional and academic circles. When someone says "I am going to submit something for peer review" what they mean is "I am going to submit something for appraisal by a qualified, unbiased body of specialists to see if it meets the standards of their field of expertise." Its not a random pairing of words, its a common phrase with a commonly agreed upon meaning. You can see for yourself by looking it up in wikipedia or an online dictionary or something.

[Orakk]

The idea is that Indie bands will finally get a wider recognition. Major labels are still not sure how this will work and won't be as easy to take a risk on it as maybe an indie band could.

Exactly!

-Orakk

[Mr. Tate]

Uh, everyone who knows what peer review is. Peer review is a common practice in professional and academic circles. When someone says "I am going to submit something for peer review" what they mean is "I am going to submit something for appraisal by a qualified, unbiased body of specialists to see if it meets the standards of their field of expertise." Its not a random pairing of words, its a common phrase with a commonly agreed upon meaning. You can see for yourself by looking it up in wikipedia or an online dictionary or something.

I have no objection to that. Still, as Harmonix as stated more than one time (please check the quotes in my previous post), it IS going to be about content too. Besides, I have no idea why you think that the definition of peer review you posted rules out the appraisal of the content.

[cherokeesam]

Well, I'm not really convinced. The phrase you quoted was in response to this: "What if people try to game the system and get illegal stuff up on the service?". And actually, the quote now makes to me the opposite meaning: it IS going to be a content wise review, not only because it actually sasy so in the quote (content review), but because it's supposed to catch content issues.

Also, read here:

"We've done some creative charting before. Piano or Organ solo on Guitar for example. I think it will be encouraged as long as it's tasteful. I have a song coming out for RBN where a bleepy synth is authored to guitar. There's no guitar in the track so it's tasteful."

Tasteful. Again, if it's not tasteful then there's a problem. So, it's also about content.

Obviously right now we don't know much it is actually going to be about content, but it's going to be, it's not just a technical review.

There's also an issue about the review system that's not about content, and it's the number of reviewers. What if some label's song isn't getting reviewed? It's gonna delay the distribution process.

Again, this is all speculation at this point, but given the information we have there's no way anyone can say that the review process is only going to be a technical one, because it's not. How much this is going to put off medium-to-big acts and if we should even care is up for debate and at this stage I don't think we can know.

That quote about "tasteful" has nothing to do with whether or not somebody actually likes a song or finds it "tasteful." (Poor choice of words there.) What the dev was talking about specifically was the option to chart keyboards to guitar and/or bass. Which has been done before, will be done again, and will be allowed in RBN. That's all that quote refers to.

[defenestrater]

I have no objection to that. Still, as Harmonix as stated more than one time (please check the quotes in my previous post), it IS going to be about content too. Besides, I have no idea why you think that the definition of peer review you posted rules out the appraisal of the content.

I never said they wouldn't appraise content. I said it wouldn't be random morons giving negative feedback because a song didn't have enough power chords or whatever :D I'm sure there will be standards of content, and I'm sure those standards will be well thought out, relatively fair, and adhered to. In other words, the standards won't be shallow, and they won't be subject to the whims of individual reviewers.

There's a difference between checking content to make sure it isn't another band's material/making sure the lyrics aren't a constant stream of profanitiy/making sure the content of the song matches the charting of the song and checking content to see if its fits into what a reviewer personally likes or dislikes. The former seems quite reasonable under the circumstances, the latter seems pretty unlikely if hmx wants this to be a success at all.

[Mr. Tate]

That quote about "tasteful" has nothing to do with whether or not somebody actually likes a song or finds it "tasteful." (Poor choice of words there.) What the dev was talking about specifically was the option to chart keyboards to guitar and/or bass. Which has been done before, will be done again, and will be allowed in RBN. That's all that quote refers to.

That's exactly what I was talking about. I fully understand what was meant in that quote, which is that you are free to chart as you wish, it simply is a matter of how tasteful it is. In the quote, if you chart an organ to the guitar, and it's considered tasteful, then it's fine.

The point is that it IS about content too. I'm not saying that the user base could actually block songs they don't like (I don't know, things Disney-like or like Visions, which I understand can cause quite a stir in the user base). I'm not saying that. I'm saying that you cannot be sure that your song is approved. And not about technical problems or legal rights but about content. I see what you mean, most probably we won't see songs not approved based on content, but from a business point of view this doesn't change a thing. I have my label, say, and I want to invest in something. This specific something requires money to get in, money to produce and money to fine tune. Then, and this is where I think that the business side of things gets muddy, you have to be approved by the community. It doesn't matter how small an IF that is, it still is something beyond your control, and when you plan it's something you don't want. That, and the fact that for any band with a recognised name I don't think it will really fly that well the fact that what they can distribute is based on people's choice, even if it's only in theory.

Bear with me once more. And please, consider that I'm just on the business end of things and I want so much this project to work because I would love to invest in it, so I'm not just nitpicking for the sake of it. Let's say I'm charting something, and I invested in it. If the number of charts produced is very high, I don't even have an idea of *when* my song will be approved and if enough reviewer are actually available to make a speedy approval (forget about content here, let's just focus on timing). I can't plan advertising, I can't plan launching, etc. etc. because I have no control on the approval process.

I know "it will probably be quick", "there won't probably be issue related to content", but probably is not the word I'm really looking for. :) At least, not for bands that are not obscure or for a professional charting venture.

[Mr. Tate]

I never said they wouldn't appraise content. I said it wouldn't be random morons giving negative feedback because a song didn't have enough power chords or whatever.

Never said that. I think I explained my self a bit more in my previous post, I'm forwarding you to that so I don't bore to death the forums. ;)



There's a difference between checking content to make sure it isn't another band's material/making sure the lyrics aren't a constant stream of profanitiy/making sure the content of the song matches the charting of the song and checking content to see if its fits into what a reviewer personally likes or dislikes. The former seems quite reasonable under the circumstances, the latter seems pretty unlikely if hmx wants this to be a success at all.

Excellent, that's exactly where I wanted to be. That's what I would love to know. :) Because I couldn't really see how Harmonix could implement the first option. Since you need a number of positive reviews, they really can't make people approve something. If a lot of people are thinking "Meh, boring, besides, why chart the drums, there are only 8 notes! (ringing any Polly bells?)", they simply won't approve. They don't need to write an objectable comment, they just need to NOT do something, which is approve.

Again, I'm not saying that this is how it's going to be, I'm just saying that I would love to see these issues addressed with more explanation. Right now the only explanation I had was, very kindly indeed I have to say, from Sean, who just said that in fact there's no guarantee that any song would be approved.

[defenestrater]

Never said that. I think I explained my self a bit more in my previous post, I'm forwarding you to that so I don't bore to death the forums. ;)


I vaguely remember someone saying it earlier on in the thread. I guess I just assumed it was you since you're so active in the conversation. My fault, it was like four in the morning when I jumped into this thread lol

The Polly-esque scenario you're talking about is certainly possible, but it seems just as possible to me that hmx will say to the screeners "This isn't about your personal feelings concerning the song, its about making sure the song meets criteria A, B, and C. And just because you personally find a song boring doesn't mean others won't find some merit in it, so keep that in mind while reviewing content."

Though I agree with you on needing more explanation. At this point we really don't know enough about the way things work to do more than speculate.

[cherokeesam]

Bear with me once more. And please, consider that I'm just on the business end of things and I want so much this project to work because I would love to invest in it, so I'm not just nitpicking for the sake of it. Let's say I'm charting something, and I invested in it. If the number of charts produced is very high, I don't even have an idea of *when* my song will be approved and if enough reviewer are actually available to make a speedy approval (forget about content here, let's just focus on timing). I can't plan advertising, I can't plan launching, etc. etc. because I have no control on the approval process.

I know "it will probably be quick", "there won't probably be issue related to content", but probably is not the word I'm really looking for. :) At least, not for bands that are not obscure or for a professional charting venture.

I understand your concern about how lengthy and how involved the peer review process will be, and I really have no idea how to answer that --- I'm sure we'll get more info before rollout. Personally, I have every reason to believe it won't take nearly as long for a band to get their stuff "approved" after submission to RBN as it would for them to go through standard RB2 channels. But yeah, let's wait and see what the devs have to say. :)

[Mr. Tate]

Well, thanks to defenestrater and cherokeesam for bearing with me. :D Let's wait and see, I completely agree.