Technical Stuff


- What can I find on this site?

- How does this site work?

- Some guidelines for your comments and reviews

- Rating criteria

How does this site work

Before I (read Federico) put up this site on the Net, I was in doubt - is it a worthy thing to do? Why would anyone take care of my site when MJA is similar but far bigger and well-known, or when you can find tons of information on the Wilson & Alroy page, or find intelligent statements on George Starostin's site, or some more or less intelligent statements on Mark Prindle's eclectic one?

First of all, I think it's always necessary to consider different views on a band if you want to go deeper into it. Second of all, I wanted to build my site in a different way than Starostin, Prindle or Wilson & Alroy (but at the time I didn't notice that MJA already had started the whole thing). My thought was that my reviews would be the fundamental material around which the site would be built, while readers are very welcome to write comments or whole reviews; I'll post both. My purpose is to create a kind of point-counterpoint discussion, so I invite all readers to mail their reviews of every band, artist or album they want, I'll post everything (with some logical exceptions) you mail me, and I hope that your mails will be the basis for future discussions.

Recently the site got a new feature: in order to give the readers more control, I decided to share the role of webmaster with those who has became a co-collaborator. So what is required to be a co-collaborator? Well, contact some of the recent webmasters about it, and write at least one review a week. When you've became one, it's helpful if you post some stuff about yourself, how you actually are and how your musical taste has developed through the years. I'll of course post a comment or review even if you aren't a co-collaborator, but I thought that this feature may add a new dimension to the MJA's "just post your reviews" thing.

Return to the index page!

Hosted by