OndaRock

To try to answer the frequent questions and curiosities of those who can't make sense of some of our editorial choices, here's a short 10-point guide on how our webzine works.

1. THE NAME OF THE SITE

OndaRock refers to our love for rock – and at the same time for new wave, among our favorite genres – but it doesn't indicate an exclusive leaning toward a single genre, since, from the very start, our site has given space to every other musical style: pop (including mainstream), singer-songwriters, folk, electronic music, R&B, hip-hop, jazz, avant-garde, and so on. So there's a whole "wave" for each of these genres. We also believe this is the greatest form of respect for our genre of choice, that rock which has always been synonymous with openness and breaking down barriers: just think of all the genres touched and crossed by David Bowie (from Frank Sinatra to metal, pretty much).

2. SCORES

These are purely indicative ratings, not to be taken as gospel, and while they're inspired by a shared scale, they reflect the different approaches of our reviewers: some are stricter, some more cautious, some more generous, and so on. So yes, it can happen that the album of an artist considered "less important" gets a higher score than another work by a sacred monster, for two reasons: maybe the two reviewers simply have divergent approaches when it comes to scoring; or maybe the more important artist just didn't convince the reviewer with that specific effort (which doesn't mean we don't rate them more highly in absolute terms). In any case, it's misleading to compare two scores on two albums of different genres if they come from different reviewers, even, say, when one score comes from the author of the artist's monograph and the other from a different reviewer who covered that artist before or after the monograph was written. Finally, there's no such thing as an "OndaRock score": there are often differing opinions within the staff about the same album, and the most effective summary of our editorial plurality is offered by the many ratings found in the reviews board.

3. HOW WE CHOOSE OUR REVIEWS

There's no higher authority that decides what is or isn't worthy of a review. The site relies on the voluntary contributions of staff writers and collaborators who, in trying to cover the main new releases across various genres, inevitably let their personal tastes and approaches come into play. So it can happen that an objectively less important album gets reviewed (perhaps because a particular writer is an expert on, or fan of, that artist), while other more relevant titles go uncovered: here your tips and suggestions are genuinely useful in helping us fill the gaps. But there's no hierarchical decision-making behind it, and above all, no one "forbids" reviewing anything.

4. HOW WE CHOOSE OUR MONOGRAPHS

Here too, there's no top-down decree setting a hierarchical schedule of monographs to be written according to importance. Everything runs on a voluntary basis, which can mean that a given writer might feel like writing a monograph on Diana Est at a given moment (maybe simply inspired by something they read or by some particular event) rather than taking on a titanic retrospective of Ennio Morricone, if only because the latter would require an enormous amount of extra work that they can't take on right now. So the objection "you have a monograph on Diana Est but not on Morricone" is understandable, but it misses the point: no one has ever thought the former is "more important" than the latter (if only because otherwise we'd all need to be committed).

5. HOW WE CHOOSE OUR MILESTONES

Here too, there's no top-down schedule dictating that milestones must be written about certain artists and not others. The calendar, constantly "in progress," is updated based on suggestions from our various writers and collaborators. So it can happen that a lesser-known, less celebrated niche album already has a milestone entry, while other more famous ones will get there over time. We don't set ourselves any limits, because we think of our milestones not as "the 100 essential rock albums," but as the countless tiles making up the musical mosaic of every genre over the last 100 years and in every corner of the world (you'll have noticed our attention to national and non-English-speaking scenes too). If that's the goal, it makes no sense to impose rigid numerical limits on ourselves. Incidentally, we've recently added to our milestones section a new feature called "33 RPM Visions," where we take a closer look at other albums that are no less interesting or valuable, further expanding our coverage of albums from the past.

6. CHARTS

Our charts are not the product of a single, monolithic view held by the site. Each participant draws up a list of titles related to the theme, reflecting their own personal perspective. The top 20 albums mentioned are assigned points: 20 points to the first on the list, 19 to the next, and so on. If an album is mentioned by multiple participants, the points it receives from each are added together. Ranking the titles from the one with the most points down, you get the final chart. What you're reading, then, are representations of the points of convergence and the plurality of views among OndaRock's contributors. It's not a list put together behind closed doors; there are no corrections and no back-room power-sharing deals. The only agreed-upon element is the set of rules outlined above. It's a game, and we hope the outcome intrigues you as much as it does us. And for those who want to dig deeper, the individual charts of each writer can be real treasure troves of discovery.

7. NEWS

Current-affairs news has increasingly earned space on the site, and has by now become one of its core sections. As with every other section, we're absolutely open to your suggestions, but broadly speaking the topics we choose are tied to the artistic activities of the people we cover on the site. So here too, artists of every stripe, from the most experimental rock to chart-topping pop. And it's by no means a given that the most successful news items are the ones dedicated to the latter, as our traffic data shows (CCCP draw far more readers than Mahmood, to give an example).

8. COMMERCIAL INTERESTS

Allow us a smile at this recurring objection, according to which the choice to review Taylor Swift or Maneskin would be the result of some unmentionable commercial interest, along the lines of "gotta pay the bills". Setting aside the fact that these aren't even the artists who bring the most clicks to the site (perhaps due to targeting issues, Google actually penalizes us on very mainstream names compared to other outlets), it seems downright surreal to imagine that artists this famous would need to bankroll a site like OndaRock to promote their work. Proof of this lies in the fact that there are no paid advertising campaigns in their favour, as can happen with print media. Once again, it all comes down to the voluntary choices of a staff that also includes fans of those artists and those genres. And that's a stroke of luck for us, since their expertise lets us broaden the scope of our musical coverage, making it more complete. We have no interest whatsoever in censoring or ignoring any given mainstream artist; we're only interested in making sure they're reviewed accurately and analytically, according to the standards we've set for our site, which has always been, and remains, strictly independent.

9. EDITORIAL GOALS

OndaRock's idea has always been to pair the promotion of alternative artists unfairly left off the radar of mainstream media with coverage of the biggest names in mainstream music. When we received the Mei award for best music website in 2013, the citation specifically praised "the thorough coverage not only of underground genres but of mainstream ones too". If in the past we covered this second area less effectively, it certainly wasn't out of snobbery, but because we lacked skilled, knowledgeable writers in these fields: now we have them, and we intend to keep them. You can understand how social media algorithms favour content with high engagement, and, whether we like it or not, that happens almost exclusively with posts about mainstream artists. So if your feed is mostly full of OndaRock articles tied to mainstream music, it's not because the editorial team intends to tip the site in that direction. As readers, you have the real power to help reverse that trend by engaging more with other kinds of content, and we sincerely hope you will.

10. CRITICISM

OndaRock grows and improves through readers' feedback and the intense debate within the editorial staff. Openness to constructive criticism and outside contributions is what has allowed us, over twenty years, to grow from a personal page into a go-to webzine for music journalism. We therefore invite you to flag any inaccuracies or errors you find on our site, and to point out possible improvements both in specific content and in the magazine's overall approach. Naturally, observations grounded in an actual reading of our articles and listening to the artists in question stand a far better chance of being taken on board than preconceived accusations that stop at the names of the artists covered (perhaps because they're rich and famous) and their supposed "unsuitability for OndaRock".

Ride the wave of great music

Add OndaRock to your favorite sources on Google Discover. Don't miss our reviews, milestones and latest news straight in your feed.

Follow on Google