RBN: Just Indie Bands?

[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 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. Let's wait and see, I completely agree.