Shortly after I started reviewing bands, I realized I needed to organize my data.
Previously I had just kept notes on whom I needed to review in a writing document, and then deleted the names after the review. That was not a good reference system.
The new file was a spreadsheet with three tabs: reviewed bands, bands that I was going to review (which were the bands that followed me on Twitter), and as I started getting recommendations, I tracked those on a separate tab.
I felt this had potential, but I was not sure how to best fill out the columns for the reviewed bands. I started by tracking the names and whether I had seen them live, but it seemed like there should be more. I had a hard time deciding what.
In the process of working all of that out, I realized that there is a limit to how much any of them matter. However, I would like to go over the thought process.
If you want to follow along, I have uploaded the current version of the spreadsheet to my Dropbox:
The data crash forced me to start over anyway.
One thing I had done previously was that I only listed a band in the spreadsheet the first time they were reviewed; it seemed most important to track the number of bands. There were some reviews that were not of bands that I didn't include at all.
This time around, everything is there. There are two number columns, tallying the number of the review and the band. Sometimes there are indications that this review is a "Repeat", or that the review contained more than one band, or that the review is not of a band. I am still using "band" for solo musicians though.
Therefore, I now know that I have written 665 reviews, covering 654 bands. It feels more accurate to have both numbers.
I still track if I have seen them live. I did not have to go back and change any, because I started working on this after my last concert. In the future, I believe I would update that cell after seeing a band live after having previously reviewed them, but I hope I get a chance to find out soon.
You would think the "band name" would not require any deliberation, but there were a few that have since changed their names.
"Active" and "From" were columns that felt really important, but that turned out to be surprisingly arbitrary. If a band starts in one town, but then moves to another, which do you use? It is also more common for bands to be scattered in different areas and use video conferencing to get around it. Plus, I have a few bands who claim mythical locations as their homes.
Time active is even more of a guess, but it means different things to different people. Some bands can go years without doing anything but still consider themselves active. Conversely, there was one band that had three breaks, but each break lasted less than a full year; wouldn't it make more sense to just call that a long vacation?
I always felt like the Main URL would be very important, with a question about which to use, but it is much less common to have competing links now. Time simplified that one for me.
Then, I have the link to my review. That was a tricky one when each band had only one line; is the first review or the most recent the most important? Deciding to count every review simplified a lot.
Also, if there were multiple contenders for the Main URL, that review captured them all. That can be helpful for detective work, especially when some of these bands have vanished.
Finally, there is just Notes.
I thought about capturing the genre, but that is often not as simple as you would hope. I thought about different key words that might make searching easier, but I didn't really like those.
One thing I tried to capture in the old sheet was if they were signed or not, and to what label. That happened because of Pete Wentz tweeting out an interest in unsigned bands one night. A lot of bands aren't bothering with labels anymore. For one thing, compensation has gone downhill.
The biggest part was realizing that this is ultimately for me. I wanted it to be useful for other people, but who is going to pore through a spreadsheet looking for bands to fine. Really, it's for me.
It does take off some of the pressure (not as much as you would think), but it's still nice to be able to put it out in the world.
The other two sheets are still there, for reviews that have not yet happened.
There are fewer bands that have followed me since I stopped reviewing. Following people on Twitter to gain fans was never that effective, and I think more bands have caught on. Still, there are eleven, and I will definitely listen to them. I try and keep track of their name, the date they followed, and a good link.
There is one band that I have been meaning to redo because of an error in the original review, and they have a new album out. There are also three where individuals followed me, and I did a review, but they joined other bands later, or had been in other bands earlier.
For example, I don't remember when Scott Wilson first followed me (and I have no idea why), but I reviewed Tantric in April 2017. About two months after that, though, he left Tantric and went to Saving Abel. It's not that the Tantric review doesn't count, but it feels like I should review Saving Abel. I take being followed by musicians and bands very seriously.
Also, some musicians have new albums out, or projects, and I take note of that.
As I have gotten fewer new band follows, the bands that I have found through friends and other musicians and books and magazines has just kept growing. Material is not a problem, only processing it.
I think I'd like to review a 1000 bands before I retire, but we'll see how it goes.
For now, there are two more Review Retrospectives waiting, and then I think I want to try reviewing new bands again.
I can't guarantee quantity or consistency, and I know I lost a lot of readers during my down period, but having new reviews will be a good thing to get back.
No comments:
Post a Comment