To try to provide answers to the frequent questions and curiosities of those who cannot explain some of our editorial choices, we provide you with a small handbook of “instructions for use” of our webzine in 10 points.
1. SITE NAME
OndaRock refers to our predilection for rock – and at the same time for new wave, among our favorite genres – but does not indicate an exclusive propensity for one genre, given that, since its birth, our site has given space to every other musical style: pop (also mainstream), singer-songwriter, folk, electronic, r’n’b, hip-hop, jazz, avant-garde etc. etc. So there are many “waves” for each of these genres. We believe, among other things, that it is the maximum form of respect for the genre of choice, that rock which has always been synonymous with openness and overcoming barriers: just think of all the genres approached and crossed by David Bowie (from Frank Sinatra to metal, practically).
2. VOTES
These are purely indicative assessments, not to be taken at face value and, although inspired by a shared scale, they reflect the different approaches of the reviewers: there are the more severe ones, the more cautious ones, the more broad-sleeved ones etc.. So, yes , it may happen that the album of an author considered “less important” can obtain a higher rating than another work by a sacred monster, and for two reasons: perhaps they are two reviewers with divergent approaches in terms of evaluations; perhaps the most important author did not convince the reviewer only in that specific test (which does not mean that for us it is not worth more in absolute terms). In any case it is misleading to compare two votes on two records of disparate genres, if expressed by different reviewers, even for example when one vote is expressed by the author of the monograph and the other by another reviewer who has dealt with that artist before or after its drafting. Finally, there is no “OndaRock rating”: there are often divergent opinions on the same record in the editorial staff, and the most effective synthesis of the editorial plurality is offered by the many evaluations present in the review board.
3. CHOICE OF REVIEWS
There is no higher authority that dictates what is review-worthy and not review-worthy. The site is based on the voluntary contribution of editors and collaborators who, in trying to give space to the main new releases in the various genres, cannot help but be influenced by their personal tastes and approaches. So it can happen that an objectively less important album is reviewed (because perhaps the editor is an expert/enthusiast of that artist), while other more relevant titles remain uncovered: in this case your contribution of indications and reports is certainly useful to fill the gaps. But there is no underlying hierarchical choice and above all no one “forces” you not to review something.
4. CHOICE OF MONOGRAPHS
Here too, there is no hierarchical diktat from above that establishes a timetable of monographs to be created based on importance. Everything is based on a voluntary mechanism that can ensure that a given editor may want to write a monograph on Diana Est at that moment (perhaps even just because it is inspired by something he has read or by a particular event) and not to embark on a a titanic retrospective on Ennio Morricone, if only because the latter would require an infinite amount of additional work that cannot be undertaken at that moment. Therefore, the objection “you have Diana Est’s monograph and not Morricone’s” is understandable, but it misses the point: no one has ever thought that the former is “more important” than the latter (also because otherwise we would all have to undergo a Tso) .
5. CHOICE OF MILESTONES
Even in this case, there is no timetable dictated from above that requires writing milestones on some artists and not on others. The calendar, constantly “in progress”, is updated based on the proposals of the various editors and collaborators. It can therefore happen that a niche album less famous and celebrated than others is already in the milestones, while those others will get there over time. We do not set limits, because we understand our milestones not as “the 100 indispensable records of rock”, but as the infinite pieces that make up the musical mosaic of every genre over the last 100 years and in every part of the world (you will have noticed our also pay attention to national and non-English speaking situations). If this is the goal, it makes no sense to set rigid numerical limitations. Among other things, recently, we have also added to the milestones the “Visioni a 33 rpm” section where we delve into other albums, no less interesting and precious, thus expanding our information offer on records of the past.
6. RANKINGS
Our rankings are not the result of a monolithic vision of the site. Each participant draws up a list of titles related to the topic, representative of their perspective. The first 20 discs mentioned are associated with a score: 20 points for the first in the order, 19 for the next, and so on. If a disc is mentioned by multiple participants, the points received by each are added. By ordering the titles starting from the one with the most points, the final ranking is obtained. What you read are therefore representations of the convergences and pluralities of views among those who collaborate at OndaRock. It is not a list constructed on a table, there are no corrections and Cencelli manuals. The only agreed upon element is the rules above. It’s a game, and we hope the outcome intrigues you as much as it does us. For those who want to dig further, the personal rankings of individual editors can be mines of discoveries.
7. NEWS
Current news has gained more and more space, now becoming one of the key sectors of the site. Having said that, as in any other sector, we are absolutely open to your suggestions, the chosen themes are generally linked to the artistic activities of the characters we deal with on the site. So, also in this case, artists of all genres, from the most experimental rock to chart-topping pop. And it is not at all certain that the most successful news stories are those dedicated to the latter, as demonstrated by the data from our visits (the CCCP attracts much more than Mahmood, so to speak).
8. COMMERCIAL INTERESTS
Allow us to smile at this recurring objection according to which the choice to review Taylor Swift or Maneskin would be the result of unspeakable commercial interests of the “I have a family” type. Having said that these are not the artists who generate the most clicks on the site (perhaps due to a question of targeting, Google penalizes us for very mainstream names compared to other publications), the idea that such famous artists need to finance a site like OndaRock to promote their business. The proof of this is that there are no paid advertising campaigns in favor of these artists, as can happen with the printed paper. These are, once again, always and only voluntary choices made by an editorial team in which there are also fans of those artists and those genres. And it’s lucky for us, given that their skills allow us to broaden the field of musical information on offer, making it more complete. We are not at all interested in censoring or ignoring such a mainstream artist, we are only interested in him being reviewed accurately and analytically, according to the standards we have set ourselves on our site which has always been, and still remains, strictly independent.
9. EDITORIAL OBJECTIVES
OndaRock’s idea has always been to combine the promotion of alternative artists unfairly cut off from the radar of general information with the coverage of the big names in mainstream music. When we received the Mei award for best music site in 2013, one of the reasons indicated was “the accurate treatment not only of underground genres but also of mainstream ones”. If before we were able to cover this second sector less effectively it was certainly not due to a snobbish choice, but because there was a lack of good and competent editors in these areas: now we have them and we are holding on to them. You can understand that the algorithms of social networks favor content with many interactions and this, whether we like it or not, almost only happens with posts about mainstream artists. If on your wall you mainly encounter Ondarock articles linked to the musical mainstream, in short, it is not because the editorial team intends to unbalance the site towards this trend. As readers, you have the opportunity to concretely reverse the trend by interacting more on other types of content, and our hope is that this will happen.
10. CRITICISM
Ondarock grows and improves through readers’ observations and intense debate within the editorial team. Openness to constructive criticism and the contributions of others is what has allowed us to go from a personal page to a reference webzine for musical information in twenty years. We therefore invite you to report to us all inaccuracies and inaccuracies on our site, and to inform us of possible improvements both in the specific contents and in the general layout of the publication. Clearly, observations based on actual reading of the articles and listening to the artists have a much greater chance of success than preconceived accusations that stop at the names of the artists discussed (perhaps because they are rich and famous) and the alleged “inadequacy of Ondarock ” of their music.
